PLATO IN THE

ITALIAN RENAISSANCE

JAMES HANKINS

VOLUME I

E.J. BRILL
L E ID E N • N E W Y O R K • K 0 B E N H A V N • K O L N
1990
 COLUMBIA STUDIES
IN THE
CLASSICAL TRADITION
A r G V M E N T V M P L A T O N I S IN D 1 A L A C .O
‘^ • H y P A P v C ! D E L V C R J C V P ID IT A T E P tR A V A R T l
under the direction of
J^gfc-LIVM FEC1NVM . F L O R E N T I N V M E X G R E C O
" N L A T 1N VA A T R A D V G T V.A-V
W IL L IA M V. H A R R IS (E d ito r) • P A U L O S K A R K R IS T E L L E R
E U G E N E F. R IC E , J R . • A L A N C A M E R O N K O P O S I T V AVI
JA M E S A. C O U L T E R • R IC H A R D B R IL L IA N T P L A T O N 1 S. 1 N
11 1 P I T A C H O I
G IS E L A S T R IK E R e S T D O CERES
NOS OASHESU
otiimcl bom nn a p p c ttr c cumcV
u k cjui p ro p te r a u a riru n n abctm
V O L U M E X V II, 1 r e in d e n tin ' b o m n n a p p e ra n t il
k U c|uidcni lu c r i cu p ici funr:L u
cru tn u n lc clV u n lc u c to bonvU
itncp c u p tu n t E r a w n lu cru m
S d a m tio ccnintirum i - D a m n u m -
uctn cum obtir m alum m ale l o i m r c o n r n m tn n c o n tra n u in -
o m ain bom nn lu c ru m ic n tu r bbnum .Q u ain o b iv n cum ilk etta
uvn ab ap p e rttu bom dbcluiair in d e n tin '. b o m n n cupicmr mhil
tarn r p iu p n a n r a u o tm m it’onnicl' Ixnmnet bomim a p p c ian t .'bonv
.n itcm cfeple-v Ynum tm it. A dtincm nltcm m . ll lu d p ro p ter t'c
^ 9 'O j MS u ’H n n . bee pveprer a k u d cvpctciiduin J im s a p p e n n o iiolvmtat
, 1 V b u rn t' clccbio lllu d ucticraudm n hoc unlc illo iu u m iiv bee u n
m u r . I llu if ad e p n o b e a n tu d o bu rn t lucvmn u o c a tu r .lu cru m
lu____
itu r eft.1 I.
bom u _tikl.j-f ac
. q tu fitio. cpicd
___ I aducncrandi
. J _______ ! Ivin
i___ cense .
* s j r S ( 2 - cunonom conduccrc p o reft O u u d u cro ad bee non contei r nee
iplum utile dV nee ciut" ad ev n o lu cru m 1—au d a u d a ic ttr tr c u
5^ pid itas c r oim ubut n a tu ra inclV V iru p o m id a autcin opinio r
A lta, q u e dum cju o d iv n t n utile ca. lucn.nn etV tonennt aype
m u m n a tu r e adnducvta rc to v q u e r. H e r om m aplJtro L itcn tw
cioCct d u m S eciu trl detimnemet’ A llas q u a l b tp p a rcb u s d c lu
P S c n c u |n d ita tt r c l t r r cM nducaido e t raeiocuiando refellit V ti

* * t u r tamcii FLvro b a r piopolitiotic omocl'bouvmct' bomnn ap p e tu r

tancuuim m am trfl a ad concludcndinn cp ounie-s n a tu r a l u c r v _

Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Urb. lat. 185, f. 7r. Portrait of Plato, from a presen­
tation copy of Ficino’s Platonis opera omnia, commissioned ca. 1484 from Vespasiano da
Bisticci for Federigo, duke of Urbino. Reproduced by permission of His Holiness Pope
John Paul II.
 The publication of this work was aided by the Stanwood Cockey Lodge Foundation

L ib ra ry of C ongress C a ta lo g in g -in -P u b lica tio n D ata

Hankins, James.
Plato in the Italian Renaissance/by James Hankins.
p., cm. — (Columbia studies in the classical tradi­
tion. ISSN 0166-1302: V. 17)
ISBN 9004091637 (set). — ISBN 9004091610 (v. 1). —
ISBN 9004091629 (v. 2)
1. Plato—Influence. 2. Renaissance—Italy. 3. Italy—
Intellectual life—1268-1559. I. Title. II. Series.
B395.H28 1990
184—dc20 89-70823
CIP

ISSN 0166-1302
ISBN X90 04 09163 7 set
' 90 04 09161 0 vol. I

"C Copyright 1990 by The Trustees o f Colum bia University in the City oj New York TO MY PARENTS
All rights reserved. No part o f this book may be reproduced or
translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, m icrofiche
or any other means without written p erm issio n from the pub lisher
P R IN T E D IN THE N K T 11 K R L A N OS

4
 CONTENTS

VOLUM E I

P reface............................................................................................................... xv
A bbreviations ................................................................................................. xxv

Introduction: T h e Revival of P la to ...................................................... 3

The Revival of Plato—Motives for the Reception (and Rejection) of
Plato—Current Explanations of the Platonic Revival and Their
Limits—Towards a Typology of Reading in the Fifteenth Century

Part I: F lorence ......................................................................................... 27

1. Plato and the Defense of the H u m a n itie s ..................................... 29

Bruni and the revival of Greek studies—Cultural controversies of the ear­
ly Florentine humanists—Plato's role in these controversies—Bruni's
translation of the Phaedo—His revolutionary approach to translation—Its
results as applied to the Phaedo—Bruni moves to Rome and becomes
papal secretary; the cultural climate in Rome—Bruni dedicates the Phaedo
to Innocent VII — His early versions of the Crito and Apology—His version
of the Gorgias—His reading of the Gorgias.

2. Plato as Civic H u m an ist ..................................................................... 58

Bruni’s second Florentine period—His quarrels with Niccoli and
Traversari—The emergence of Bruni's mature attitudes (his “civic
humanism’’)—His changed attitude to Plato—Bruni's “ Collected Works
of Plato’’ in Latin—His “ Mutilated Fragment’’ of the Phaedrus—Bruni’s
attraction to the Phaedrus’ account of Divine Love and poetic-
inspiration— His second versions of the Apology and Crito—His dedication
of Plato’s Letters to Cosimo de’Medici and his political motives for doing
so—Bruni’s presentation of Plato as a “ republican’’— His version of
Alcibiades’ Speech from the Symposium.

3. M in o r T ran slato rs in Florence and the Papal C o u r t ................. 81

Cencio de’Rustici versions of the Axiochus and De virtute—Rinuccio
Aretino’s versions of the Crito, Axiochus and Euthyphro—Francesco Filelfo’s
versions of three Letters and of the Euthyphro—Filelfo’s philosophical
studies and his attitude to Plato.

Diffusion and influence of the new translations—Conclusions: Elective

affinities between Plato and the early FIorentino-Roman school of
humanism?......................................................................................................... 95
VIII CONTENTS CONTENTS IX

P art II: M il a n ............................................................................................... 103 3. Pletho and the Plato-A ristotle C o n tro v e rs y ................................... 193
Roots of the controversy in Byzantine intellectual history—The religion
1. Uberto Decembrio: Renaissance Signory and the Republic...... 105 of Pletho: pagan or heretic?—Pletho’s De differentiis and Western reac­
tions to it—The early stages of the controversy: from Constantinople to
Manuel Chrysoloras comes to Milan— Life and opinions of Uberto
Rome—Connection with the “ Academic” conspiracy of Pomponio
Decembrio—Reasons why Chrysoloras and Decembrio translated the
Leto—Use of the printing press to defend Plato—Summary of the causes
Republic: signorial propaganda? — Plato’s Republic as a justification for
for the Plato-Aristotle controversy.
signorial government in Decembrio’s later De repubhca libri IV.

4. C ard in al Bessarion and P l a t o ............................................................. 217

2. Pier C andido D ecem b rio ’s Celestial Polity........................................ 117
Bessarion’s early life and education; his debt to Pletho—Bessarion’s use
Pier Candido Decembrio’s life and works—His attitude towards of Platonism for ecumenical purposes at the Council of Union—His
translation—Decembrio and the "Ethics Controversy”—The genesis of Platonic critique of Western scholasticism—Bessarion appointed
Decembrio’s translation of the Republic— Decembrio’s motives for Cardinal-Legate of Bologna—his Platonic critique of economic
translating the Republic— His patrons—Meeting their expectations— “ liberalism” and oligarchy—Bessarion’s library and the preservation of
Decembrio’s rivals and critics—Their criticisms of Plato: his Greek culture after the fall of Byzantium—The In Calumniatorem Platoms
"'disorderliness ” , '‘immorality’’, and paganism—How Decembrio’s as a defense of Greek culture—Bessarion’s views on the relationship be­
translation and textual apparatus for the Republic was designed to forestall tween Greek philosophy and the Christian religion.
criticism—Exegetical techniques employed by Decembrio—His use of
Plato’s political thought in controversies with Bruni and Francesco
Barbaro—Decembrio’s critique oi auctontas as a defense of the Republic— 5. Bessarion vs. T re b iz o n d ........................................................................ 236
The delense ot Plato against Lactamius and Aristotle in Antonio da General estimate and summary of Trebizond’s Comparatio Platoms et
Rho’s In Lactantium. Anstotelis—Plausibility of George’s criticisms in the Fifteenth century—
George’s critical principles—Bessarion’s use of the Neoplatonic tradition
3. T h e Platonic T ran slatio n s of A ntonio C a ssa rin o .......................... 154 of exegesis to defend against George—Contents of the In calumniatorem
Platoms—Bessarion’s hermeneutical principles and techniques—Some ex­
Cassarino’s life and works—His “ secularizing” approach to amples of Bessarion’s exegesis: his defense of Plato’s “ disorder” , his ac­
translation—Cenesis of Cassarino’s Latin Republic—Limits of his ability count of the transmigration of the soul in Plato, his use of the notion of
to render accurately Plato’s philosophy. “ Platonic love” to defend Plato from charges of having tolerated
homosexuality—The significance of the In calumniatorem Platoms for the
reception of Plato.
P art III: R o m e ............................................................................................. 161

Summary of the achievements of early Quattrocento Platonic Part IV: F lorence ...................................................................................... 265
scholarship—Cultural changes in the mid-Quattrocento: the new interest
in philosophy among humanists, the rise of philological criticism. 1. M arsilio Ficino, D octor of S o u ls ....................................................... 267
A Platonic consolatio mortis at the deathbed of Cosimo de’Medici—Ficino’s
1. G eorge of T reb izo n d and P la to .......................................................... 165 early life and literary education—His attitude to humanism,
George of Trebizond’s life and character—His prophetic attacks on scholasticism, and Averroism—Ficino’s religious sensibility—His ap­
Plato—History of his attitude to Plato and the reasons for his hatred of pearance and character—His “ spiritual crisis” — His idea of an “ ancient
the Greek philosopher—George’s critique of the political philosophy of theology” —Ficino discovers his vocation; his “ culture criticism” —
Plato’s Laws. Platonism as the cure for the ills of contemporary culture—Ficino’s
methods of spreading Platonism in Florence and Europe.
2. T re b iz o n d ’s T ran slatio n s of the Laws and the Parmenides......... 180
Motives for George’s translation of the Laws’. Was George a 2. Ficino and the Platoms opera omnia..................................................... 300
hypocrite? — Reasons for George’s translation of the Parmenides— The history of Ficino’s translations of Plato—Astrological significance of
George s theory of translation and its inner contradictions—The charac­ their date of publication—Patronage of his translation— How Ficino es­
ter of George s translations of the Laws and Parmenides—Bessarion’s cri­ tablished the canon and the order of Plato’s dialogues—Ficino’s use of
tique of George’s version of the Laws.
X CONTENTS contents xi

previous translations and subsequent revisions—Character of Ficino’s 7. U berto and Pier C an d id o D ecem brio’s Notabilia to T h eir
versions—Ficino’s Neoplatonic view of inspired translation. T ran slatio n s of the Republic .............................................................. 412

3. Ficino on Socrates, Plato, and the Platonic C o r p u s .................. 318 8. D ecem b rio ’s Platonic S tu d ie s .......................................... 415
The history and plan of Ficino’s commentaries on Plato—Ficino’s view A. H is Supposed T ran slatio n of the Sophist................................ 415
of Socrates and Plato—his vision of the purpose, structure, and textuality
B. H is T reatise De immortalitate..................................... 417
of the Platonic dialogues—his contribution to Platonic scholarship.
C . H is Bow dlerized V ersion of the L y s is .................................... 418
4. T h e Commentaria in Platonem: Exegesis as A pologetic.................. D. M iscellan ea..................................................................... 420
341
Ficino’s conception of exegesis—The formal structure of and models for
Ficino’s exegesis—Ficino’s exegetical techniques: his use of doctrinal, 9. F our Q u attro cen to T ran slato rs of Republic V ........... 422
allegoristic, critical and scholastic techniques—The antiplatonic tradition
in late fifteenth century Florence—The effectiveness of Ficino’s exegesis 10. C a ssa rin o ’s M an u scrip ts of P la to .................................. 427
as a tool of apologetics—Conclusion: Ficino’s place in the development
of Platonic exegesis in the fifteenth century.
11. G eorge of T re b iz o n d ’s V ersions of the Laws and the Parmenides 429
C o n c lu sio n ........................................................................................................ 360
12. P leth o ’s Influence in the L ater Q u a ttro c e n to ........... 436

13. B essarion’s D ebt to Proclus in Book II of the Calumniator— 441

V O L U M E II

Preface to V olum e I I .................................................................................... ix 14. T h e “ A ncient T h eo lo g y ” of A ristotle A ccording to G eorge of

T reb izo n d ................................................................................................ 445
P ar t I: A p p e n d ic e s
15. P oliziano’s F rag m en tary T ran slatio n of the Charmides............ 449
1. T h e D ates of Ep. 1.1 [1-8], the L atin Phaedo, the Dialogi ad
Petrum Histrum and Som e O th e r Early works of L eonardo
16. F icino’s “ Spiritual C risis” ................................................................ 454
B r u n i .......................................................................................................... 367

2. T h e D ates of B ru n i’s T w o R edactions o f the Crito and Apology, 17. T h e D evelopm ent of F icino’s “ A ncient T h eo lo g y ” ................. 459
and of H is V ersions of the Gorgias, Phaedrus and Epistolae__ 379
18. O n the T ex tu al H istory of F icino’s Platoms opera omnia.......... 464
3. B ru n i’s T ran slatio n s of P l a t o ............................................................ 388 A. D ependence on E arlier T ran slations ........................................ 464
A. T h e Phaedo......................................................................................... 388 B. L ater R e v isio n s................................................................................ 477
B. T h e Gorgias ........................................................................................ 394
C. The Phaedrus...................................................................................... 396 19. T h e D ates of F icino’s A rgum ents and C o m m e n ta rie s ............ 482
D. T he Symposium.................................................................................. 399
20. L orenzo L ip p i’s T ran slatio n of the Io n .......................................... 485
4. T h e T ran slatio n s of the Euthyphro by R inuccio A retino and
Francesco F ile lfo .................................................................................... 401 P ar t II: T exts

5. T h e D ates of Filelfo’s T ran slatio n s of P la to ................................ 404 C onspectus scriptorum Platonis interp retatio n em saec. X V
illu stra n tiu m ..................................................................................................... 491
6. A gostino D a ti’s V ersion of the P seudo-P latonic Halcyon and Leonardus Aretinus—Cincius Romanus—Rinucius Aretinus—Francis-
R enaissance Skepticism ....................................................................... 408 cus Philelphus—Augustinus Datus—Manuel Chrysoloras et Ubertus
XII CONTENTS

Decembrius—Petrus Candidus Decembrius—Antonius Cassarinus—

Georgius Trapezuntius— Laurentius Lippius Collensis—Angelus Politia-
nus—Marsilius Ficinus.

P art III: C at alog s

A. C ensus of M a n u s c rip ts .......................................................................... 669

B. C ensus of P rin ted E d itio n s .................................................................. 738
S purious I m p r in ts ................................................................................... 796
C . E x tra c ts ....................................................................................................... 797
D. P erdita, D u b ia, S p u r ia .......................................................................... 802
E. B io-bibliographical N ote on S ix teen th -C en tury T ra n s la to rs ... 804
F. T ab u la I n itio r u m .................................................................................... 808
G. Indices ........................................................................................................ 816
1. Index of D ia lo g u e s........................................................................... 816
2. Index of T r a n s la to r s ........................................................................ 819
3. Index of Scribes, A n n o tato rs and D ecorators of M a n u ­
scripts .................................................................................................. 822
4. Index of O w ners or V endors of M a n u sc rip ts......................... 824
VOLUM E I
5. Index of D ated and D atable M a n u s c rip ts ................................. 826
6. Libri an n o tati ..................................................................................... 827
7. Index of P rin ters and Publishers ................................................ 827

Index of M an u scrip ts Not Listed in C at. A ........................................ 830

Index of N am es .............................................................................................. 833

Addenda........................................................................................................ 845
 PR E F A C E

It had b etter be said at the outset that the present study is not a history
of R enaissance Platonism . It is rather the story of how the writings of a
great philosopher were received and interpreted, some 1800 years after
they were w ritten, in an alien language, religion, and culture. M y orien­
tation is not that of an historian of philosophy interested in a phase of the
Platonic tradition so m uch as that of a cultural historian trying to u n d er­
stand the ways m en in terpret and use their past. H ence my chief sources
are not treatises and summae of Platonic philosophy, but the translations
and com m entaries that are principally responsible for introducing Plato
into the high Latin culture of the Fifteenth century. I focus upon those
philosophers and hum anists who most closely studied the Platonic
dialogues, w hether or not they were recognizably Platonists, and pass
lightly over im portant Platonists such as C u sanus and Pico who did not
devote them selves with any vigor to expounding the text of Plato.
T his book thus belongs to the genre of scholarly literature devoted to
studying the fortuna of classical authors in later W estern history, a genre
that seems to be experiencing a rem arkable expansion of la te .1* M y own
background and interests, how ever, have taken me in a rath er different
direction from most other recent exam ples of Rezeptionsgeschichte. As an
intellectual historian interested in the history of herm eneutics, my
tendency has been to look at interpretations of the Platonic dialogues in
the context of the history of learning and textual exegesis. I have focussed
above all on the question of why the Platonic dialogues were read the way
they w ere. T his question has been forced on me by a dissatisfaction with

1 Among the books that have appeared in the last ten years (the articles being too
numerous to mention) are C. Robinson, Lucian and His Influence in Europe (Chapel Hill,
1979); F. Gori and C. Questa, eds., La fortuna di Tacito dal sec. X V a d oggi, Studi Urbinati,
53 (Urbino, 1979); E. Mattioli, Luciano e I’Umanesimo (Naples, 1980); A. Moss, Ovid in
Renaissance France (London, 1982); C. Schmitt, Aristotle m the Renaissance (Cambridge,
Mass., 1983); A. Buck and K. Heitmann, Die Antike-Rezeption in den Wissenschaften
waehrend der Renaissance { Weinheim, 1983); M. Mund-Dopchie, La survie d ’Eschyle a la Re­
naissance (Louvain, 1984); L. Gualdo Rosa, La fede nella Paideia: Aspetti della fortuna europea
di Isocrate nei secoli X V e X V I , Istituto storico per il medio evo, studi storici, fasc. 140-141
(Rome, 1984); P. and J. Courcelle, Lecteurs paiens et lecteurs chretiens de I ’Eneide, 2 vols.
(Paris, 1984); E. F. Rice, Jr., St. Jerome in the Renaissance (Baltimore, Md., 1985); Lectures
medievales de Virgile, Collection de 1’Ecole frangaise de Rome, 80 (Rome, 1985); R. J.
Hexter, Ovid and Medieval Schooling. Studies in Medieval School Commentaries on O vid’s Ars
Amatoria, Epistulae ex Ponto, and Epistulae Heroidum , Muenchener Beitraege zur
Mediaevistik und Renaissance-Forschung, 38 (Munich, 1986). Much of this research,
like my own, has been encouraged by the progress of the C'I'C (q.v ).
XVI PREFACE PREFACE XVII

certain other accounts I have read of the in terp retatio n of ancient authors than has heretofore been the rule, and learn m uch m ore about the history
in the M iddle Ages and R enaissance. Such accounts are com m only w rit­ of exegetical practice and scholarly m ethods than is presently k n o w n .3
ten by classical scholars, on holiday, as it w ere, from the m ore serious H av in g said this, however, I am obliged to rem ove a possible
business of w riting an o th er article ab o u t the o rd er of H o ra c e ’s Odes. m isu nderstanding. T o historicize our u n d erstan d in g of the history of
T h ey are usually highly com petent and m ake valuable contributions to herm eneutics, as I am trying to do, need not in my view entail denying
know ledge, but ra th e r less of a co n trib u tio n , in my view, to historical the possibility of historical reason, as it does (not w ithout the appearance
u n d erstan d in g . T h ey tend eith er to m inim ize the historical alterity of old of self-contradiction) for deconstructionists like Foucault and the m ore
in terp retatio n s or to exhibit them as historical curiosities, as m ere deliciae radical proponents of reception theory. I continue to believe that in ter­
erudiiorum. Faced, for instance, with b izarre readings of Plato which turn p retations which obey the canons of historical criticism can be “ rig h t”
him into a civic hum anist, an Attic M oses or the A ntichrist, we are told in a non-trivial sense of the w ord, taking “ rig h tn ess” to refer to
that these were regrettable ab erratio n s which should not distract our a t­ verifiable hypotheses about authorial in te n tio n .4 A nd I believe that this
tention from the genuine co n trib u tio n s to philology m ade by our kind of in terp retatio n , if exercised with prudence and w isdom , can still
forebears. O r we are invited to smile indulgently at the eccentricities of have positive effects in our culture. It w ould be inconsistent and indeed
pre-E n lig h ten m en t savages who could not be expected to reason clearly im m oral to em ploy the traditional m ethods of historical and philological
in m atters of scholarship. In neither case is it explained how it was that criticism , as I have done throughout this book, w ithout some belief in
prem o d ern exegetes cam e to produce such peculiar readings of texts their validity and value. H istoricizing o u r u n d erstan d in g of h er­
whose m eaning (to us) seems obvious. T h e re is perhaps the odd reference m eneutics does, to be sure, entail the recognition that the forms of
to civic hu m an ism or the wars of religion, but little sustained attem pt to criticism used in traditional historical and literary scholarship, however
see old in terp retatio n s as historical phen o m ena. valid they m ay be for certain purposes, are them selves historical
T h e difficulty, of course, is that one cannot begin to explain why people p henom ena with a determ inate origin in the culture of early m odern
believe w hat they believe w ithout seem ing to em bark on some sort of E urope. But there is no apriori reason why the appearance of a given
reductionist project. Scholars who respect their objects of study very m ethod on the historical stage at a particu lar tim e and place in itself en ­
naturally feel distaste for any attem p t to present the conceptions of older tails that its validity as a m ethod is historically contingent.
thinkers as m ere suffum igations of larg er historical ‘"forces” or “ fac­ In the present study, then, I have tried to set the translations and com ­
to rs” .2 Yet the alternatives seem to be the ones I have ju st m entioned: m entaries on Plato m ore deeply than is custom ary w ithin their historical
eith er to see o u r predecessors as stages in a W higgish history of scholarly context. I define the historical context as including not only the rem ote
progress— ignoring the “ irra tio n a l” elem ents in their herm eneutical context of great events and m ovem ents, b ut also the im m ediate context
practice— or to dism iss them them as a collection of fools and eccentrics. of the in te rp re te r’s own intellectual history, the exegetical traditions he
O n e way out of this impasse, as it seem s to me, is to realize that what belonged to, the kinds of patronage he enjoyed, contem porary literary
counts as rational in textual exegesis has changed over tim e, as has the values, and coeval debates about Plato an d Platonic doctrines. I have also
stru ctu re and aim s of learned com m unities. O ne m ust try to u n d erstand studied in some detail the com m entaries and translations them selves (a
alien forms of thought, not in such a way as to render them project too often overlooked) with a view to relating these herm eneutical
epiphen o m en al, but rath er as a coherent system of cultural values w ithin artifacts m ore closely to their su rro u n d in g context. It is m y hope that the
which a given in terp retatio n , how ever ab su rd it m ay seem to us, can read er will acquire from this analysis not only a richer u n d erstan d in g of
have a m eaningful function. T h is m eans th at in o rder to un d erstan d old
in terp retatio n s we m ust establish their context in a m uch richer fashion 3 I address some of the unexplored possibilities in the history ot hermeneutics in a
paper given to the Circolo medievistico di Roma, “ II Calalogus Translationum et Commen-
tanorum come strumento di ricerca,” Accademie e hiblioteche d ’ltalia 55.4 (1987): 9-16. The
limitations of traditional approaches to the history of scholarship are suggested by A.
Grafton in a review-article “ From Poliziano to Pasquali,” Journal of Roman Studies 67
(1977): 171-176.
1he argument against epiphenomenalism has recently been put forward forcefully 4 For some trenchant criticism of the modern dogma which asserts the existence ot an
by Charles I avlor ( Philosophical Papers, col. 1: Human Agency and Language [Cambridge. “ intentionalist fallacy” , see P. D. Juhl, Interpretation: An Essay in the Philosophy oj Literary
I985|. chapter 1). Criticism (Princeton, 1980), esp. pp. 2391.
XV II I PREFACE PREFACE XIX

why Plato was read the way he was in the early R enaissance, b ut will also at C o lu m b ia U niversity, and I should like.to thank that institution for its
achieve a b etter sense of the general conditions and attitudes governing generous support of my graduate education. D u rin g m y graduate years
the reading of texts in the p re-m o d ern period. I also received support from the Fulbright C om m ission for a y ear’s study
in Florence and from the A m erican A cadem y in R om e for a year in
In addition to its purpose as a case study in the history of herm eneutics, R om e, velpotius in the V atican L ibrary. At the A m erican A cadem y I also
this book has a subsidiary, and ra th e r m ore traditional purpose: to d e­ obtained a g ran t from the R ichard K rau th eim er F u n d for the purchase
scribe and docu m en t the im pact of the Platonic dialogues upon the Latin- of m icrofilm s. A fter receiving my degree, I was supported for two more
reading public of R enaissance Italy. T h e sources-and-influence school of years as a m em ber of the Society of Fellows in the H um an ities at C olum ­
intellectual history has lately taken a b eatin g on the academ ic stock ex­ bia U niversity.
change, and it obviously suffers from certain lim itations, but tracing I should like also to thank the following individuals and institutions for
sources and d o cu m en tin g influences rem ains to m y m ind an essential answ ering inquiries or supplying photographs: Eva A ndersson (K ungliga
discipline for anyone in terested in the history of philosophy, literature, B iblioteket, Stockholm ), A delheid Arefi (H essische Landesbibliothek,
or the arts. As an aid to historical criticism , it has a value quite indepen­ W iesbaden), R o b ert P. L. A rpots (K atholieke U niversiteit, Nijm egen),
dent of its origin in the m ists and fogs of Geistesgeschichte. So I have taken D r. R o bert Babcock (Beinecke Library, Yale U n iv .), Badische Landes­
care in the notes and appendices to give as accurate an account of the bibliothek (K arlsruhe), the late D r. H ans Baron (C am bridge, M ass.),
datin g and textual trad itio n of the L atin translations and com m entaries Fr. Elisabeth Beare (Stadtsbibliothek N u ern b erg ), L eonard N. Beck
as I am able and as the present state of research will allow. I have tried (L ib rary of C ongress), Prof. Ernesto Berti (Istitu to di filologia greca,
to relegate the critical and philological discussions as m uch as possible to Pisa), D r. Jad w ig a Bezwihska (M uzeum N arodow e, K rakow ), dott.ssa
the notes and to the second volum e so as to interfere as little as possible C o n cetta Bianca (U niv. of R om e), dott.ssa C arla G uiducci Bonanni
with the m ain them es of the book; the misological read er is of course (Biblioteca R iccard ian a, Florence), M r. W . H . Bond (H arv ard U niv.),
welcome to skip them . M r. Neil Boness (State L ibrary of New South W ales, Sydney), Fr.
I also believe th at m y description of fifteenth cen tu ry interpretations L eonard Boyle, O .P . (Biblioteca Apostolica V aticana), D r. H ans B raun
of the dialogues will co n trib u te to an u n d e rsta n d in g of P la to ’s influence (F ondation B odm er, C ologny-G eneva), D r. R. Breugelm anns
in a less obvious way. In the course of m y researches I have frequently (Bibliotheek d er R ijksuniversiteit, Leiden), R o b ert L. B urr (Crosby
met with historians who assert the im pact of Plato or P latonism upon L ibrary, G onzaga U n iv .), G u en th er B uttm ann (U niversitaetsbibliothek,
literary and artistic figures of the R enaissance on the basis of M unich), D r. J . A. C ervello-M argalef (Erzbischoefliche Dioezesan- und
resem blances betw een cultural artifacts m ade by such figures and doc­ D om bibliothek, C ologne), m gr. A dam C h rzan (Polska A cadem ia N auk,
trines presently believed to be Platonic. In a n u m b er of cases it has been K ornik), Prof. W endell C lausen (H arv ard U n iv .), M r. J o h n C ochrane
quite clear to m e th at no one in the R enaissance could possibly have read (U niversity of O tago, D u n ed in , New Zealand), C ath erin e M . C om pton
the dialogues in the m o d ern way; indeed, in the case of some doctrines, (H a rv a rd U n iv .), F ernando C oncha (K ungliga Biblioteket, Stockholm),
R enaissance exegetes read Plato in exactly opposite senses from the way D r. M . C . C oppens (K atholieke U niversiteit, L ouvain), M r. C. G. Cor-
he is in terp reted today. O ften , too, it is m istakenly assum ed that R en ais­ deaux (B odleian L ibrary, O xford), Prof. F. E dw ard C ran z (D urham ,
sance translators provided th eir readers w ith approxim ately the sam e sort N .C .) , M r. Aldo R . C upo (Beinecke L ibrary, Yale U n iv .), D r. M artin
of renderings that Jo w e tt or C o rn fo rd provide to m odern readers. I hope D avies (W olfson College, O xford), m gr. Ja n u sz D em bski (Biblioteka
that my account of the R enaissance in terp retatio n of Plato will help p e r­ P ubliczna, P oznan), M r. R odney G. D ennis (H o u g h to n L ibrary, H a r­
sons looking for Platonic influences to form a m ore correct notion of how vard U n iv .), Prof. D r.sc. D ietze (U niversitaets- u. L andesbibliothek
that influence m ay have o perated in the fifteenth and later centuries. S achsen-A nhalt, H alle), H e rr W erner D obras (S tadtarchiv, L indau),
D r. D. D oering (U niversitaetsbibliothek, Leipzig), dott. G iuseppe Don-
* * *
di (Biblioteca N azionale, T u rin ), Dr. P atricia D onlon (C hester Beatty
T his study is very long and has taken me alm ost eight years to write, so L ib rary , D ublin), M . D orban (Bibliotheque de l ’U niversite C atholique,
I hope I m ay be excused for the great n u m b e r of debts I feel obliged to L ouvain-la-N euve), M m e M .-R . D ubois (B ibliotheque de l’U niversite,
record. It began life as a Ph. D. dissertation in the D e p artm en t of H istory Liege), H . J . D uijzer (Stadtsbibliotheek, H aarlem ), H e rr F. Ekowski
\x PREFACE PREFACE xxi

(N iedersaechsische L andesbibliothek, H an n o v er), D r. J u e rg e n E rd m an n L. C esarini M artinelli (U niv. of Florence), D r. Erdos M atyas (Foszeke-
(L andesbibliothek C o b u rg ), D r. L idia F erenczv (N atio n al Szechenyi segyhazi K onyvtar, Esztergom ), U niv.-P rof. D r. O tto M azal (O ester­
Library, B udapest), M r. S tephan Ferguson (Princeton U niv. L ibrary), reichische N ationalbibliothek, V ienna), the Bibliotheque M azarine
D ra. A ntonia de M en a F ern an d ez Z en d rera (Biblioteca U n iv ersitaria y (Paris), C onstance M cC arth y (N orthw estern U niv. L ibrary), D. J .
Provincial. Barcelona), Prof. A rth u r Field (P rinceton U n iv .), D r. H einz M cK itterick (C am bridge U niv. L ibrary), D r. Bernd M ichael (S taats­
Finger and G. K arp p (U niversitaetsbibliothek, D uesseldorf), H ans bibliothek Preussischer K ulturbesitz, B R D ), Fr. Benignus M illett,
Frings (O effentliche B ibliothek, A achen), Rev. C arl-G o esta Frithz O . F. M . (Franciscan L ibrary, D u n M huire), d o tt.ssa A ntonietta M oran-
(D om kvrkobibliotek, S traen g n aes), M iss M a rg a rita G are (B erchm a- dini (Biblioteca M edicea L au ren zian a, Florence), D r. M . M uehlner and
nianum , N ijm egen), E leanor M . G arvey (H o u g h to n L ib rary , H arv ard Dipl. Phil. W. Stein (Saechsische Landesbibliothek, D resden), Anastazy
U niv.), Prof. D eno G eanakoplos (Yale U n iv .), dott. Sebastiano G entile N adolny (Biblioteka S em inarium D uchow nego, Pelplin), Doine Naegler
(Scuola N orm ale, Pisa), M ile. A nn e-V ero n ique Gilles (C . N. R . S., (M uzeul B rukenthal, Sibiu), D r. P. F. J . O b b em a (Bibliotheek der
Paris), Prof. V. R. G iu stin ian i (F reib u rg i. Br.), P. G ottfried G lassner R ijksuniversiteit, Leiden), M rs. M au ra O 'C o n n o r (N ational L ibrary ot
(Stiftsbibliothek M elk), M rs. Phyllis G o o d h art G ordan (N ew Y ork C ity), A ustralia, C an b erra), R einhold O h lm ann (K irchenbibliothek N eustadt
Prof. A nthony G rafton (P rin ceto n U n iv .), M r. Ja m e s G reen (R egens- a. d. Aisch), S. O hno (U niversity of T okyo L ibrary), R ichard O liver,
tein L ibrary, U niv. of C hicago), Prof. G ordon G riffiths (U niv. of O .S .B . ( S t.J o h n 's U niversity, Collegeville, M in n .), M iss H . E. Owen
W ashington), H e rr G laser (B ibliothek des O berlandesgerichts, Celle), (G onville and C aius College, C am bridge), M r. A. E. B. O w en (C am ­
Prof.ssa Lucia G ualdo R osa (U niv. of V iterbo), M s. D orothy H anks bridge U niv. L ibrary), M r. R. I. Page (C orpus C hristi College, C am ­
( N ational L ibrary of M edicine, Bethcsda, M d .). Sgr. Jo se de Prado Her- bridge), M onsignor Angelo Paredi (Biblioteca A m brosiana, M ilan),
ranz (San Lorenzo de El Escorial), D r. H elga H ilschenz-M lynek (K est- Prof. A lessandro Perosa (U niv. ot Florence), D r. A ngela Popescu-
ner-M useum , H an n o v er), M r. A. R . A. H obson (H a m p s., England), Bradiceni (Biblioteca C en trala de Stat, B ucharest), J a n in a Potemska
M . H ofstede (Bibliotheek d er R ijksuniversiteit, L eiden), K ari H olm (B iblioteka U niw ersytecka, Lodz), D r. G erh ard t Powitz (Stadt- und
(U ppsala U niversitetsbibliotek), H e rr H o p f (R atsbuecherei L ueneburg), U niversitaetsbibliothek, F rankfurt a. M .), Prof. D ino Puncuh
Dr. Peter H u b a (O ravske M u z e u m , D olny K ubin), D r. O tto H unold (Biblioteca D urazzo, G enoa), Alfons Pyka (B ibliothek des Bischoetlichen
(H ospitalbibliothek, K ues), G u e n te r H u rlb rin k (L andeskirchliches A r­ P riestersem inars, M ainz), dott. G ian A lbino R avalli M odoni (Biblioteca
chive N uernberg), M r. F abian H utch in so n (U niversity of M elbourne N azionale M arcian a, V enice), D eborah Reilly (U niv. ot W isconsin
Library), D r. Eva Irblich (O esterreichische N ationalbibliothek, V ienna), L ibrary), M r. M ark R oberts (British In stitu te, Florence), Prot. D iana
Dr. V ilenka Ja k a c (N atio n al and U n iversity L ibrary, L jubljana), Prof. R obin (A m erican A cadem y in R om e), dott. M ario R oncetti (Biblioteca
E douard Je a u n e a u (C . N. R . S., Paris), D r. K arl-H ein z Ju eg elt (U n i­ C om unale A ugusta, P erugia), D r. Erika R o th e r (D eutsche Staatsbiblio­
versitaetsbibliothek, R ostock), M rs. Libby K ahane (Jew ish N ational and thek, D D R ), D r. In g rid R ow land (R om e), D r. M arian n e Rozsondai
U niversity L ibrary, Je ru sa le m ), Frau I. K iessling (U n iv ersitaetsbiblio­ (H u n g a ria n A cadem y of Sciences), H e rr R ueggeberg (K irchen-
thek. M uen ster), A n n a K ilpinen (U niversity L ibrary, Stockholm ), D r. M inisterial-B ibliothek, Celle), M onsignor Jo se R uysschaert (Biblioteca
Jen o Kiss (Fovarosi Szabo Ervin K o n v v tar, B udapest), D r. P. Kittel A postolica V aticana), D r. hab. Bohdan Rvszewski (U niversity Library,
(D eutsche S taatsbibliothek D D R ), D r. H orst K oehn (M arienbibliothek, T o ru n ), Bert J . van d er Saag (G em eentelijke A rchief, G ouda), D r.
Halle), the V erlag V alentin K oern er, G M B H , M r. D. W . K ok (P ro v in ­ S alzbrunn (Staats- und Stadtbibliothek A usburg), D ra. T eresa S an­
c i a l Bibliotheek van F riesland, L eeuw arden), D r. Sigrid K raem er tan d er (Biblioteca U niv ersitaria, Salam anca), M . H en ri Schiller (Paris),
(Bayer. A kadem ie d er W issenschaften), D r. K ratzsch (Z entralbibliothek D. Schouten (K oninklijke Bibliotheek, ’s-G ravenhage), D r. Francesco
der D eutschen Klassik, W iem ar), m gr. Stanislaw K rzyw icki (Biblioteka A lvarez Seisdedos (Biblioteca C ap itu lar y C olom bina, Seville), M ichael
Publiczna, Szczecin), Lippische L andesbibliothek (D etm old), Prof. Schlosser (S tadtbibliothek, Bad W indsheim ), the late Prof. C harles
M ary Louise Lord (C am b rid g e, M ass.), Nikola Lukacevic (N aucna Schm itt (W arb u rg Inst., L ondon), Dr, P ieter Schoonheim (Zeeuwse Bi­
Biblioteka, Z ad ar), Lucilla M arin o (A m erican A cadem y in Rom e bliotheek, M iddelburg), Prof. Dr. M artin Sicherl (W estfaelische
Library), Sgr. Ivan A ntonio M artin (C en tro N acional de D ocum enta­ W ilhelm s-U niversitaet, M uenster), P r o f R o b ert Sinkewicz, C .S .B .
tion y M icrofilm acidn, M ad rid ), Prof. T h o m as M artin (U niv. of T ulsa), (Pontifical Institute, T o ro n to ), Prof. Lilija Socanac (N ational and U ni­
 XXII PREFACE PREFACE XXIII

versity L ib rary , Z agreb), Prof. Jo se f Soudek (Q ueens College, New always been extrem ely fortunate in my teachers, but I rem em ber with
Y ork C ity), O . B. Starke (Stadt- und K reisbibliothek, B autzen), D r. particu lar g ratitude five teachers at D uke U niversity, A rthur B.
M artin S tein m an n (U niversitaetsbibliothek, Basel), M r. Sem C . S u tter Ferguson, Francis N ew ton, Law rence R ichardson, j r . , R onald G. W itt,
(R egenstein L ibrary, U niversity of C hicago), F. Sw arte, O .P ra e m . (Ab- and especially E dw ard P. M ahoney. At C olum bia my chief supervisor
dij van ’t Park, H everlee), Fr. D r. T o ep ler (U niversitaetsbibliothek, was E ugene F. Rice, j r ., truly a vir bonus dicendi pentus, to whose sense,
Bonn), M m e. C laude T riaille (B ibliotheque de la V ille, Liege), D r. learning and literary taste I owe m ore than can easily be said. I also
C hristl U n te rra in e r (U niversitaetsbibliothek Salzburg), Prof. J o h n V an benefitted from the teaching of R oger Bagnall, J . M . W . Bean, Jam es
Sickle (New Y ork U niversity), M r. P eter V an W ingen (L ib rary of C o n ­ C o u lter, W illiam V . H arris, Jo h n H . M undy, and Peter Pouncey;
gress), M . V erg au w en -V an Elsen (M u seu m P lan tin -M o retu s, A n t­ W illiam H arris has since com pounded my debts to him by serving as a
werp), D r. R ich ard V irr (M cG ill U niv. L ibrary, M o ntreal), Prof. Paolo m ost tactful and patient editor. I am also grateful to Ju lia n Deahl and
Viti (U niv. of Lecce), P h D r. Ja ro sla v V o b r (Statnf V gdecka K nihovna, the staff at E. J . Brill for the skill and speed with which they dealt with
Brno), W illiam Voelkle (M o rg a n L ibrary, New York), M r. B rian W ard- a massive and difficult m anuscript.
Perkins (T rin ity College, C am b rid g e), D r. M orim ichi W atan ab e I hardly know how to express my gratitude to Prof. Paul O skar
(Q ueens College, New Y ork C ity), Prof. Jill W ebster (U niv. of T o ro n ­ K risteller who from my first arrival in New York C ity has lavished his
to), D r. W ilfried W e rn e r (U n iv ersitaetsbibliothek, H eidelberg), Prof. proverbial generosity upon me in su p erab u n d an t quantities. Scarcely a
Dr. H . W ern er (B erliner S tadtbibliothek, D D R ), D. W iessm an week in the last eight years has gone by w hen I have not received from
(Dom stift M erseb u rg ), M rs. M ajorie G . W ynne (Beinecke L ib rary , Yale him some useful piece of advice or inform ation, and anyone familiar with
U niv.), m gr. B arb ara Zajaczkow ska (B iblioteka Slaska, K atow ice), m gr. his work will recognize the deep im press of his m ethod and scholarly
H elena Zarachow icz (B iblioteka P ubliczna, W arsaw ), Ire n a Zdanow icz outlook upon my ow n. In addition he was kind enough to read my entire
(N ational G allery of V ictoria, M elb o u rn e), H e rr C h ristian Z em m rich 1700-page typescript and supplied m any pages of detailed com m ents and
(E v.-L uth. P farram t “ St. A n n e n ’’, A nnaberg), D r. Frantisek corrections. I despaired long ago of acknow ledging individually his con­
Zndkavesely (A rchiv M esta, Brno). I am also grateful to the Istituto tributions to m y study, so here I m ust sim ply say that if there is anything
C entrale p er la patologia del libro in R om e for perm ission to m ake use of value in m y work, a great portion of the credit m ust go to him.
of their valuable m icrofilm collections. Finally I should also like to thank my dear wife V irginia, who has not,
Special thanks are due for m uch efficient and sym pathetic help to the to be sure, gone so far as to read my book, being busied with the more
staffs of the B ibliotheque N atio n ale in P aris, the B ritish L ib rary in L o n ­ im p o rtan t affairs of m edieval southern Italy, but she has given me most
don, B utler L ib rary (C o lu m b ia U n iv .), H oughton and W idener expert help with the texts and the proofs, and has subm itted with ap ­
L ibraries (H a rv a rd U n iv .), the A m erican A cadem y in R om e L ibrary, p aren t interest to m atu tin al lectures on B yzantine theology. T his study
and the B iblioteca A postolica V aticana. owes m uch to her wide learning, sound ju d g em en t, and unquenchable
M artin D avies, J o h n M on fasan i and M ichael J . B. Allen generously good spirits. In the dedication of these volum es I acknowledge, since I
read P arts I, III and IV respectively of this study and are responsible for cannot express, my oldest and deepest debt.
m any corrections and im p rovem ents. M y colleague Steven E. O zm ent
gave m e m uch valuable literary advice, especially with the Introduction. 20 A ugust 1988
D r. A lbinia de la M are has kindly shared her unrivalled knowledge of C am b rid g e, M assachusetts
hum anistic hands with m e on a n u m b e r of occasions. Prof. G eorg
Nicolaus K n a u e r and D r. Elfriede K n a u e r, out of sheer good-will, have
in the last few years supplied m e with an ex trao rdinary am o u n t of useful
inform ation from their ow n exhaustive surveys of m anuscript catalogues
and unpublished inventories. N one of these friends is of course to be
blam ed for m y errors.
As this is the first book I have published u nder my nam e alone, I
believe it is ap p ro p riate here to record also some older debts. I have
 G E N E R A L A B B R E V IA T IO N S A B B R E V IA T IO N S

Ambros. Bibliotcca Ambrosiana. Milan ADAM = R. G. Adam, Francesco Filelfo at the Court of Milan (14 3 9 -1 4 8 1 ). A Contribution to
Angel. Bibliotcca Angelica, Rome the Study of Humanism in Northern Italy , diss. Oxford, 1976, 2 vols.
App. Volume 2. Appendix ADAMS = H. M. Adams, Catalogue of Books Printed on the Continent of Europe, 1501-1600,
ASF Archivio di Stato, Florence in Cambridge Libraries, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1968).
BAV Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana A LE X AN DR E = Plethon, Trade des Lois, ed. C. Alexandre, tr. A. Pellissier (Paris, 1858;
BL British Library, London repr. Amsterdam, 1966).
BN Bibliotheque Nationale. Biblioteca Nazionale ALLEN, Erasmus = Opus Epistularum Des. Erasmi Roterdami, ed. P. S. Allen, H. M. Allen,
BNC Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale and H. W. Garrod, 12 vols. (Oxford, 1906-1958).
Bodl. Bodleian Library, Oxford ALLEN (1975) = M. J. B. Allen, ed. and trans., Marsilio Ficino: The Philebus Commentary
Cat. Volume 2, Catalogue (Los Angeles, 1975; repr. with corrections 1979).
ties. desinit ALLEN (1977) = idem, “ Ficino’s Lecture on the Good?” 30 (1977): 160-171.
DLC Librarv ol Congress. Washington. D C. ALLEN (1980) = idem, “ Two Commentaries on the Phaedrus: Ficino’s Indebtedness to
me. incipil Hermias,” /ICC/ 43 (1980): 110-129.
Laur. Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana, Florence ALLEN (1981a) = idem, and Roger A. White, “ Ficino’s Hermias Translation and a
Marc. Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venice New Apologue,” Scriptorium 35 (1981): 39-47.
ONB Ocsterrcichischc Nationalbibliothek. Vienna ALLEN (1981b) = M. J. B. Allen, ed. and trans., Marsilio Ficino and the Phaedran Charioteer
Rice. Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence (Los Angeles, 1981).
SB Stadtsbibliothek. Staatsbibliothek ALLEN (1982) = idem, “ Ficino’s Theory of the Five Substances and the Neoplatonists’
SK-CSR Statni Knihovna. Czechoslovak Socialist Republic Parmenides," Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 12 (1982): 19-44.
LB Universitatsbibliothek. Biblioteca Universitaria. etc. ALLEN (1984a) = idem, “ Marsilio Ficino on Plato, the Neoplatonists and the Christian
Vullicel. Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Rome Doctrine of the Trinity,” R Q 37 (1984): 555-584.
ALLEN (1984b) = idem, The Platonism of Marsilio Ficino: A Study o f H is Phaedrus Commen­
Works by classical authors are cited according to their abbreviations in the Oxford Classical tary, Its Sources and Genesis (Los Angeles, 1984).
Dictionary, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1973). Abbreviations of the titles of Platonic dialogues are ALLEN (1986)= idem, “ The Second Ficino-Pico Controversy: Parmenidean Poetry,
those of LSJ, p. x.xxiii, as follows: Eristic, and the One,” in Ritorno (q.v.), pp. 417-455.
ALLEN (1987) = idem, “ Marsilio Ficino’s Interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus and Its
Ale. 1, 2 = Alcibiades 1, 2 Just. = De lusto Myth of the Demiurge,” in Supplementum Festivum (q.v.), pp. 399-439.
Amat. = Amatores La. = Laches ALLEN (1989) = idem, Icastes: Marsilio Ficino's Interpretation o f Plato’s Sophist (Five Studies
Ap. = Apology Gc - Leges and a Critical Edition), forthcoming (1989).
Ax. = A x well us Ly. = Lysis ASSEMANI = St.-Evremond Assemani, Catalogo della Biblioteca Chigiana (Rome, 1764).
Clfirm. = Charm ides Men. = Aleno BARON, Crisis = H. Baron, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and
(Hit. = Clitophon Min. = Minos Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1955); rev.
Cra. = Cratylus Mx. = Menexenus edn. in 1 vol. (Princeton, 1966).
Cri. = Cri to Phd. = Phaedo BARON, Humanistic and Political Literature = H. Baron, Humanistic and Political Literature in
Criti. = Critias Phdr. = Phaedrus Florence and Venice at the Beginning of the Quattrocento: Studies in Criticism and Chronology
Def. = Defimtiones Phlb. = Philebus (Cambridge, Mass., 1955; repr. New York, 1968).
Demod. = Demodocus Pit. = Politicus BARON (1968)= H. Baron, From Petrarch to Leonardo Brum (Chicago, 1968).
Ep. = Epistulae Prrn. = Parmenides BAUDRIER = H. L. Baudrier, Bibliographie Lyonnaise, 12 vols. (Lyon, 1895-1921).
Epin. = Epinomis Prt. = Protagoras BEAULIEUX = Ch. Beaulieux, Catalogue de la reserve XVIe siecle de TUmversile de Paris, 2
Erx. = Eryxias Rep. = Republic vols. (Paris, 1910-1923).
Euthd. = Euthydemus Sis. = Sisyphus BE C = Bibliotheque de TEcole des Chartes.
Euthphr. - Euthyphro Snip. = Symposium BELLI = A. Belli, “ Le versioni umanistiche dell’ Assioco pseudoplatonico,” La parola del
Crg. = Gorgias Sph. = Sophist passato 39 (1954): 442-67.
Hale. = Halcyon Thg. = Theages BERNONI = D. Bernoni, Dei Torresam, Blado e Ragazzoni, celebn stampaton a Venezia e
Hip parch. = Hipparchus Tht. = Theaetetus Roma nel X V e X V I secolo (Milan, 1890).
H p.m a., mi. = Hippias maior, minor Ti. = Timaeus BERTALOT = L. Bertalot, Studien zum italienischen und deutschen Humanismus, ed. P. O.
Ion = Ion Virt. = De uirtute Kristeller, Storia e letteratura, Raccolta di studi c testi. vols. 129-130 (Rome, 1975).
BERTI = E. Berti, II Critone latino di Leonardo Brum e di Rinuccio Aretino. hdiziom cntiche di
E. Berti e A. Carosim, Accademia Toscana di scienze e lettere “ La Columbaria ,
Studi LXII (Florence, 1983).
 XX VI A B B R E V IA T IO N S A B B R E V I A T IO N S X X V II

B H R = Bibhotheque d ’Humanisme et Renaissance. CPMA = Corpus Plalonicum M edii Aevi, ed. R. Klibansky, comprising: vol. 1: Meno, inter-
Bibl. Borbon. = F. de Licteriis, Codicum saeculo X V impressorum qui in Regia Bibliotheca Bor- prete Henrico Aristippo, ed. V. Kordeuter and C. Labowsky (London, 1940); vol. 2:
bonica adservantur catalogus, 3 vols. (Naples, 1828-1833). Phaedo, interprete Henrico Aristippo, ed. L. Minio-Paluello (London, 1950); vol. 3:
BIETENHOLZ = P. G. Bietenholz, Der italiemsche Hurnanismus und die Bluetezeit des Parmenides usque ad finem primae hypothesis nec non Proch Commentanum in Parmenidem,
Buchdrucks in Basel (Basel, 1959). pars ultima adhuc inedita, interprete Guillelmo de Moerbeka, ed. R. Klibansky and C.
BMC * British Museum, General Catalogue oj Printed Books, 263 vols. (London, 1965-1966). Labowsky (London, 1953); vol. 4: Timaeus a Calcidio translatus commentanoque instruc­
BM X V = British Museum, Catalogue of Books Printed in the XVth Century now in the British t s , ed. J. H. Waszink, 2nd edn. (London and Leiden, 1975).
Museum, 8 vols. (London, 1908-1949). C T C = Catalogus Translationum et Commentanorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations
BNC = Bibhotheque Nationale, Catalogue general des livres imprimis , 215 vols. (Paris, 1897-) and Commentaries, Annotated Lists and Guides, ed. V. Brown, F. E. Cranz, P. O.
BN PI. = Bibhotheque Nationale, Catalogue des ouurages de Platon conserves au Departement des Kristeller, 6 vols. (Washington, D. C., 1960-1986).
imprimis et dans les bibliotheques Mazarine, Ste.-Genevieve, de VArsenal, de I ’Umversiti de CVL = Codices Vaticani Latini (Vatican City, 1902-).
Paris, de I ’lnstitul Victor-Cousin, et de I ’Ecole Normale Supeneure (Paris, 1937). D B I = Dizionario bwgrafico degh Italiam (Rome, I960-).
BOND = W. H. Bond and C. U. Faye, Supplement to the Census oj Medieval and Renaissance DE LA MARE, The Handwriting = A. C. de la Mare, The Handwriting of the Italian
Manuscripts in the United States and Canada (New York, 1962). Humanists, vol. 1, fasc 1 (Oxford, 1973).
BORSA (1893a) = M. Borsa, “ Un umanista vigevanasco del sec. X IV ,” Giornale ligustico DELLA TORRE = A. Della Torre, Stona delTAccademia Platomca dt Firenze (Florence.
20 (1893): 81-111; 199-215. 1902).
BORSA (1893b) = M. Borsa, “ Pier Candido Decembrio e l’umanesimo in Lombardia, DE RICCI = S. De Ricci and W. J. Wilson, Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts
Archivio Stonco Lombardo 20 (1893): 5-75, 358-441. in the United States and Canada, 3 vols. (New York, 1935-1940).
BORSA (1904) = M. Borsa, “ Correspondence of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and DURLING = R. J. Durling, A Catalogue of Sixteenth Century Printed Books in the National
Pier Candido Decembrio,” English Historical Review 19 (1904): 509-526. Library of Medicine (Bethesda, Md., 1967).
BOTTONI = D. Bottoni, ‘‘I Decembrio e la traduzione della Repubblica di Platone: Dalle FICINO, Op. = M arsilii Ficini Florentini ... Opera, 2 vols. (Basel, 1563; repr. Turin, 1959,
correzioni dell’autografo di Uberto alle integrazioni greche di Pier Candido,” in 1983).
Vestigia. Studi in onore di Giuseppe Billanovich, ed. Rino Avesani et al. (Rome, 1984), FICINO, Comm, in Conv. , ed. Marcel = Marsile Ficin: Commentaire sur le Banquet de Platon,
1:75-91. ed. and tr. R. Marcel (Paris, 1956).
BRUNET =J. Ch. Brunet, Manuel du Libraire, 5th edn., 6 vols., with 3 vols. of sup­ FILELFO, Epistulae (1502) = Francisci Philelpht Epistolarum fam ilianum libn X X X V II ex eius
plements (Paris, 1860-1865). exemplan transcnpti (Venice, 1502).
BRUNI, Schnften = Leonardo Brunt Aretino: Humamslisch-philosophischen Schnften mit einer FUBINI (1966)= R. Fubini, “ Tra umanesimo e concilio” , Studi medievali, ser. 3, 7
Chronologie seiner Werke und Briefe, ed. H. Baron, Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des (1966): 322-370.
Mittelalters und der Renaissance, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1928; repr. Wiesbaden, 1969). FUBINI (1984) = idem, ‘‘Ficino e i Medici all’avvento di Lorenzo il Magnifico,”
BRUNI, Ep. = Leonardi Bruni Arretim Epistolarum libn VIII, ed. L. Mehus, 2 vols. Rinascimento, ser. 2, 24 (1984): 3-52.
(Florence, 1741). In citing Bruni’s letters, the location in Luiso’s (q.v.) arrangement GARIN (1955)= E. Garin, ‘‘Ricerche sulle traduzioni di Platone nella prima meta del
is given first, followed by the Mehus reference in parentheses. sec. X V ” , in Medioevo e Rinascimento: Studi in onore di Bruno Nardi (Florence, 1955),
CAG = Commentana in Aristotelem Graeca (Berlin, 1891-). 1: 339-374.
C A L U M N IA T O R = Bessarion, In Calumniatorem Platonis, in Mohler (q.v.), vol. 2. GARIN (1969) = idem, L ’eta nuova. Ricerche di stona della cultura dal X I I al X V I secolo
CAMMELLI = G. Cammelli, I doth bizanhni e le origim delTumanesimo, vol. I: Manuele (Naples, 1969).
Cnsolora (Florence, 1941). GARIN (1979)= idem, La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano, 2nd edn. (Florence,
CAMPBELL = M. F. A. G. Campbell, Annales de la typographie Neerlandaise au XV e specie 1979).
(The Hague, 1874). GARIN (1983) = idem, II Ritorno dei filosofi antichi, Lezioni della Scuola di studi superiori
CARTIER, Tournes = A. Cartier, Bibliographie des editions des Des Tournes imprimeurs Lyon- in Napoli, no. 1 (Naples, 1983).
naise. 2 vols. (Paris, 1937-1938). GENTILE (1983) = S. Gentile, ‘‘In margine all’epistola De divino furore di Marsilio
CA T. GEN. = Catalogue generale des manuscnts de bibliotheques publiques des Departements de Ficino,” Rinascimento, n.s., 23 (1983): 33-77.
France, Quarto series (1849-1885), Octavo series (1886-). G KPB = Gesamtkatalog der Preussischen Bibliotheken, 14 vols. (Berlin, 1931-1939).
C H R P = The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, ed. C. B. Schmitt, Q. Skinner, E. G K W = Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, 8 vols. (Leipzig, 1925-1940: Berlin, 1972-).
Kessler, J. Kraye (Cambridge, 1988). GOFF = F. R. Goff, Incunabula in American Libraries, 3rd Census (New York, 1964).
COE = Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, ed. GRAESSE = J. G. Th. Graesse, Tresor des livres rares et precieux, I vols. in 8 (Dresden,
P. G. Bietenholz, 3 vols. (Toronto, 1985-87). 1859-1869).
COLOMBINA = Biblioteca Colombina, Catalogo de sus libros impresos, 7 vols. (Seville, GRAFTON-JARDINE = A. Grafton and L. Jardine, From Humanism to the Humanities:
1888-1948). Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe (Cambridge,
C O M M E N T A R IA 1496 = M arsilii Ficini Commentana quinque perpetua in Platonem (Florence, Mass., 1986).
1496). G SLI = Giornale stonco della letteratura italiana.
C O M P A R A 7IO = George of Trcbizond, Comparatio philosophorum Aristotelis et Platonis GUARINO, Epistolano = Epistolano di Guarino Veronese, ed. R. Sabbadini, 3 vols.,
(Venice, 1523; phot. repr. Frankfurt a. M., 1965). Miscellanea di storia veneta, nos. 8, 9, and 14 (Venice, 1915-19).
COP1NGER = W. A. Copinger, Supplement to Hain j Repertonum Bibliographicurn, 2 vols. in GUTHRIE = W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 4 (Cambridge, 1975)
3 (London, 1895-1902). and vol. 5 (Cambridge, 1978).
COULTER = J. A. Coulter, The Literary Microcosm: Theories of Interpretation of the Later HAENEL = G. Haenel, Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum qui in bibhothecis Galhae, Helvetiae.
Neoplatonists. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, no. 2 (Leiden, 1976). Belgu, Bntanmae Magnae, Hispaniae, Lusitamae asservantur (Leipzig, 1830).
X X VIII A B B R E V I A T IO N S A B B R E V IA T IO N S XXIX

MAIN = L. Haiti. Repertoriurn Bibhographicum. 2 vols. in 4 (Stuttgart. 1826-1848). ZA'/=H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, .1 Greek-English Lexicon, rev. H. S. Jones, with a Sup­
HANKINS (1686) = "Some Remarks on the Historv tuul Character.of Ficino’s Transla­ plement (Oxford, 1940, 1968).
tion of Plato." in Ritorno, pp. 287-604. LUISO = F. P. Luiso, Studi su Fepistolarw di Leonardo Brum, ed. L. Gualdo Rosa. Istituto
HANKINS ( 1987a) = "Plato in the Middle Ages" in Dictionary oj the Middle .4gfs\ ed. J. storico per il medio evo. Studi storici, fasc. 122-124 (Rome. 1980).
R. Strayer, vol. 9 (New York. 1987), pp. 694-704. MAITTAIRE = M. Maittaire, Annales typographici ab artis inventae ongine ad annum 7667.
HANKINS ( 1 9 8 / b ) = ' A Manuscript of Plato's Republic in the Translation of 4 vols. in 8 (Amsterdam. 1722-1741).
Chrysoloras and Uberto Deeembrio with Annotations of Guarino Veronese (Reg. MARCEL = R. Alarcel, Marsile Ficin. 1433-1499 (Paris. 19;)8).
lat. 1141)," in Supplernentiun Festivum (q.v.), pp. 149-188. MARZI = D. Marzi, La cancellena della repubblica fwrentina (Rocca San Casciano. 1910;
HOFFMANN = S. F. VV. Holfmann. Bibliographisches Lexicon der gesamten Literatur der repr. Florence, 1987).
Gricchen. 6 vols. (Leipzig, 1848-1845). MASAI = F. Masai, Plethon et le platonisme de Mistra (Paris, 1956).
7 H R H i M A .\IS M Oh L E O N A R D O B R U N I = G. Griffiths. J. Hankins, and D. Thomp­ MAZZATINTI = G. Mazzatinti, Inventan del manosentti delle biblioteche d ’ltalia (1887-).
son, trs.. I he Humanism oj Leonardo Brum. Selected Texts. Medieval and Renaissance MOHLER = L. Mohler, Kardmal Bessanon als Theologe, Humanist, und Staatsmann. 4 vols.
Texts and Studies, no. 46 = Renaissance Societv of America, Renaissance Texts (Paderborn. 1924-1942).
Series, no. 10 ( Binghamton, New York, 1987). MONFASANI, George of Trebizond = George of Irebizond: A Biography and .1 Study of His
IG IB l = Indice generate degh incunaboh delle biblioteche d'Italia. 5 vols. (Rome. 1945-). Rhetoric and Logic, Columbia Studies in the Classical 1 ratlition. no. 1 (Leiden,
IM U = Italia medioevale e umamstica. 1976).
/AC. POL. = Bibliotheca Naiionalis Polona, Incunabula quae in Biblwthecis Poloniae asservan- M O ST R A = Marsilio Ficino e il Ritorno di Platone. Mostra di Manosentti. Stampe. e Documenti.
tur. 2 vols. (Wroclaw, 1970). ed. S. Gentile. S. Niccoli, and P. Viti (Florence. 1984).
I .\D .1/ R. = Index Aurehensis. Catalogus hbrorum sedecirno saeculo impressorum. prima pars, NIJHOFF = W. Nijhoff and M. E. Kronenberg, \ederlandsche bibliographic can 1500 tot
vols. 1-17 (Baden-Baden, 1965-1974); tertia pars, vols. 1-2 (1967-1974). 1540, 4 vols. (The Hague, 1919-1943), and 4 vols. of supplements (1925-1951).
I / ER = P O. Kristeller, Iter Italicum: .4 Finding List of Uncatalogued or Incompletely NOVATI = Epistolano di Coluccio Salutati, ed. F. Novati, 4 vols., Fonti per la storia
('.dialogued Humanistic Manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and Other Libraries. 4 vols. d’ltalia, vols. 15-18 (Rome. 1891-1910).
to date (London and Leiden. 1964-1989), plus index to volume 4 (London and S U C = Librarv of Congress, Sational Union Catalogue (Washington. D. C., 1968-).
Leiden. 1987). An "L" alter the page number indicates a catalogue excerpt, a "D" OATES = J . C. T. Oates, A Catalogue of Fifteenth-Century Printed Books in the ( mversity
indic ates a description, and "ts" indicates a citation from the typesc ript of vols. 1-5. Library, Cambridge (Cambridge. 1954).
JOHN R\ LANDS = John Rylands Library. Manchester. Catalogue of Printed Books and O LD = P. G. W. Glare, ed. Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford. 1982).
Manuscripts, 4 vols. (Manchester. 1899). PALAU Y DULCET = A. Palau y Dulcet, Manuel del Librern Hispano-Americano. 7 vols.
J U CI = Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. (Barcelona. 1924-1927).
KIESZKOW SKI = B. Kieszkowski, Studi sul platomsmu del Rmascimenta in Italia (Florence, PANZER = G. W. Panzer. Annales Typographici. 11 vols. (Nuremberg, 1794-1804).
1946). PAREDI = A. Paredi. La biblioteca di Francesco Pizolpasso (Milano, 1961).
KING = M L. King. Venetian Humanism in an Age of Patrician Dominance (Princeton. 1986). PASTOR = L. \ on Pastor, The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages, 7th edn.,
KLI BANSKA (1949)=R. Klibanskv. Fhe Continuity of the Platonic Tradition during the M id ­ vols. 1-6 tr. F. Antrobus (London, 1891-1923).
dle (London. 1949). [Reissued. Munich. 1981. together with Klibanskv (1944) PCCB I = Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Rome. Prnno catalogo collettivo delle biblioteche
and a supplement.! itahane, 1 vols. (Rome, 1962-1973).
KLIBANSKY (1944)= idem. “ Plato’s Parmenides in the Middle Ages and Renais­ PENNINK = R. Pennink, Catalogus der met-Sederlandse drukken 1500-1540 aanwezig in de
sance," Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 1 (1944); 281-440. Komnklijke Bibliotheek (’s Gravenhage, 1955).
KRIS! FLLLR (1956) = P. O. Kristeller, Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters. Storia PG = J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca, 161 vols. (Paris,
e letteratura. Raccolta di studi e testi. no. 54 (Rome. 1956; repr. 1969). 1857-1866).
KRIS TFLLLR (1965) = idem. Renaissance 'Thought II: Papers on Humanism and the Arts PL = J . P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina, 221 vols. (Paris.
(New York. 1965); repr. as Renaissance Thought and the Arts (Princeton. 1980). 1844-1864).
KRISTELLER ( 1966) = idem, ‘'Marsilio Ficino as a Beginning Student of Plato, ' Scrip­ P L A T O N IS OPERA 1491 = Platoms opera latina Marsilio Ficino interprete (Venice, 1491) [see
torium 20 (1966): 41-54. App. 25B. no. 8|.
KRISTELLER (1978) = idem, " The f irst Printed Edition of Plato's Works and the Date P L O T IN I OPERA 1492 = Plotini opera a Marsilio Ficino latine reddita, (Florence, 1492) [Hain
of its Publication," in Science and History. Studies in Honor of Edward Rosen. Studia 13121],
Copcrnicana NAT (Ossolmeum. 1978), pp. 25-45. POLAIN = M. L. Polain, Catalogue des Hires impnmes au quinzieme sieclc des bibhotheques de
KRIS PEL.LER (1985) = idem. Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters II, Storia e let­ Belgique, 4 vols. (Brussels, 1932).
teratura, Raccolta di Studi e testi, no. 166 (Rome. 1985). POLALN-PELLECHET = M. L. Polain and M. Pellechet, Catalogue general des incunables
LAGARDE = B. Lagarde, "Le De difjerentns de Plethon d ’apres Tautographe tie la Mar- des bibhotheques publiques de France, 3 vols. (Paris, 1897-1909).
cienne,” Byzantwn 44 (1974 J 1974j); 412-444. PROCTOR = R. Proctor, An Index to the Early Printed Books in the British Museum (London,
LEG RAND, Bibhographie = E. Lcgrand. Bibliographic hispano-grecque, 4 sols, m 2 (Pans, 1898-1938).
1915-1917). REICHLING = D. Reichling, Appendices ad Haimi-Copingen Repertonum Bibhographicum. 7
I.EGRAND = Is. Lcgrand. Cent-dix leltres grecques de Francois Fi/elfe pubhccs mtegralement pour vols. (Munich, 1905-1911), and supplement (1914).
la premiere fois d'apres le codex Fr/ruhianus 873 (Paris. 1892). RENOUARD, Badius - Ph. Renouard, Bibliographic des impressions et des oeuvres de fosse
I.( X 1K\\ ( )( )D = 1). P. Lockwood. " De Rmucio Areuno graecarum littcrarum inter- Badius Ascensius, 4 vols. (Paris, 1908).
prele. Harvard Studies in C/assual Philology, 24 (1914): 51-109. RENOUARD. Imprimeurs = Ph. Renouard, Impnmeurs et hbraires pansiens du XVIe siecle.
2 vols. (Paris. 1964-1969).

I
XXX A B B R E V I A T IO N S A B B R EV IA T IO N S XXXI

RESTA (1959) = G. Resta, “ Antonio Cassarino e le sue traduzioni di Plutarco c ULLMAN, Origin and Development = B. L. Ullman, The Origin and Development oj Humanistic
Platone,’’ IM U 3 (1959): 207-283. Script (Rome, 1960).
RESTA, Le epitomi = G. Resta, Le epitomi del Plutarco nel Quattrocento (Padua, 1962). VERDE = A. F. Verde, O. P., Lo studio fiorentino, 1473-1503, Ricerche e Documenti, vol. 4:
RIGINOS = A. Swift Riginos, Platomca: The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of La vita universitana, 3 parts (Florence, 1985).
Plato, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, no. 3 (Leiden, 1976). WALKER = D. P. Walker, The Ancient Theology (Ithaca, 1972).
RIS = Rerum italicarum scnptores WALLIS, Neoplatonism = R. T. Wallis, Neoplatonism (London, 1972).
R I PORNO = Marsilio Ficino e II Ritorno di Platone, Studi e documenti, ed. G. C. Garfagnini, WEISS = R. Weiss, Humanism in England During the Fifteenth Century, 2nd edn. (Oxford.
Istituto Nazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, Studi e testi, no. 15, 2 vols. (Florence, 1957).
1986). WIND, Pagan Mysteries = E. Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, rev. edn. (New York,
RITTER = F. Ritter, Repertoire bibliographique des livres impnmes en Alsace au XVe siecle de la 1968).
Bibliotheque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg, fasc. 1-11 (Strasbourg, 1934-1938). WITT, Salutati = R. G. Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads: The Life, Work, and Thought of Coluc-
R Q * Renaissance Quarterly. cio Salutati, Duke Monographs in Medieval and Renaissance Studies, no. 6
SAFFREY-WESTERINK = H. D. Saffrey and L. G. Westerink, eds., Proclus: Theologie (Durham, NC, 1983).
Platonicienne, 5 vols. to date (Paris, 1968-1987). WOODHOUSE = C. M. Woodhousc, George Gemistos Plethon, The Last oj the Hellenes (Ox­
SAJO = G. Sajo and E. Soltesz, Catalogue incunabulorum quae in Bibhothecis Publicis ford, 1986).
Hunganae asservantur, 2 vols. (Budapest, 1970). ZACCARIA (1952) = V. Zaccaria, “ L’epistolario di Pier Candido Decembrio,”
SAMMUT = A. Sammut, Umfredo Duca di Gloucester e gli umamsti italiani, Medioevo e Rinascimento, ser. 1, 3 (1952): 85-118.
umanesimo, no. 41 (Padua, 1980). ZACCARIA (1956) = idem, “ Sulle opere di Pier Candido Decembrio,’’ Rinascimento,
SANTINELLO = G. Santinello, “ Glosse di mano del Cusano alia Repubblica di ser. 1, 7 (1956): 14-74.
Platone,’’ Rinascimento, ser. 2, 10 (1970): 1 17-145. ZACCARIA (1959) = idem, “ Pier Candido Decembrio traduttore della Repubblica di
SCH OLIA P LA T O N IC A = W . C. Greene, Scholia Platonica, American Philological Platone,” IM U 2 (1959): 179-205.
Association, Monograph Series no. 8 (Haverford, Pa., 1938; repr. 1981). ZACCARIA (1967) = idem, “ Pier Candido Decembrio e Leonardo Bruni,” Studi
S T = Studi e testi (Vatican City) rnedievah, ser. 3, 8 (1967): 305-354.
STC-FRANCE = British Museum, Short-title catalogue of books printed in France and of French ZACCARIA (1974/75) = idem, "Pier Candido Decembrio, Michele Pizolpasso, e
books printed in other countries from 1470-1600 now in the British Museum (London, 1924). Ugolino Pisano,” Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti 133 (1974/75):
STC-GERMANY = British Museum, Short-title catalogue of books printed in the German­ 187-212.
speaking countries and of German books printed in other countries from 1455 to 1600 now in
the British Museum (London, 1962).
STC-HOLLAND = British Museum, Short-title catalogue of books printed in the Netherlands
and Belgium and of Dutch and Flemish books printed in other countries from 1470 to 1600 now
in the British Museum (London, 1965).
STC-ITALY = British Museum, Short-title catalogue of books printed in Italy and of Italian
books printed in other countries from 1470-1600 now in the British Museum (London, 1958).
STC-SCOTLAND = A Short-title catalogue of foreign books printed up to 1600; Books printed or
published outside of the British Isles now in the National Library of Scotland and the Library
of the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1970).
STEEL = C. Steel, Proclus: Commentaire sur le Parmenide de Platon, traduction de Guillaume de
Moerbeke, 2 vols. (Louvain and Leiden, 1982-1986).
STILLWELL = M. B. Stillwell, Incunabula in American Libraries (New York, 1940).
SU PPL. = Supplementum Ficinianum. M arsilii Ficini Florentini Philosophi Platonici opuscula in-
edita et dispersa, ed. P. O. Kristeller, 2 vols. (Florence, 1938; repr. 1973)
S U P P L E M E N T U M F E S T IV U M = J . Hankins, J. Monfasani, and F. Purnell, Jr., eds.,
Supplementum Festivum: Studies m Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, Medieval and Renais­
sance Texts and Studies, vol. 49 (Binghamton, NY, 1987).
TIGERSTEDT = E. N. Tigerstedt, The Decline and Fall of the Neoplatonic Interpretation of
Plato, An Outline and Some Observations, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum,
no. 52 (Helsinki, 1974).
T R A P E Z U N T IA N A = Collectanea Trapezuntiana. Texts, Documents, and Bibliographies of
George of Trebizond, ed. J. Monfasani, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies,
vol. 25 = Renaissance Society of America, Renaissance Texts Series, vol. 8
(Binghamton, 1984).
TRAVERSARI, Epistolae = Ambrosii Traversani ... Latinae Epistolae, ed. P. Cannetus, 2
vols. (Florence, 1759; repr. Bologna, 1968).
TRINKAUS, Image and Likeness = C. Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness, Humanity and
Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought, 2 vols. (Chicago and London, 1970).
 <plXo<; jjL£v nXaxcov, cpiX-cepa 3e i\ aXrjGeia
John Philoponus, De Aet. mundi,
ed. Rabe, p. 144

Errare malo cum Platone quam cum istis vera

sentire.
Cicero, Tusc. 1.17.39

Das Unhistorische und das Historische ist glei-

chermassen fur die Gesundheit eines einzelnen,
eines Volkes und einer Kultur notig.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Vom Nutzen und Nachteil
der Histone fur das Leben

1
 IN T R O D U C T IO N

The Revival of Plato

No one would any longer m aintain the facile generality, once the staple
fare of textbooks, that the M iddle Ages were an Age of A ristotle and the
R enaissance an Age of Plato. T he m odern study of Renaissance
A ristotelianism has dem onstrated beyond question the continued vitality
and creative developm ent of A ristotelian school philosophy well into the
seventeenth century and its im pact upon some of the greatest and most
representative thinkers of the R enaissance period. Even am ong the Italian
h u m an ists— once believed to have a special love for P lato— an im portant
trad itio n of h u m anist A ristotelianism has been distinguished, exemplified
by such m ajor figures as L eonardo B runi, G eorge of T reb izo n d , Jo h n
A rgyropoulos, Jacq u es Lefevre d ’Etaples, and Philip M elanchthon. In­
deed, if one looks to sheer statistics, it is clear that m anuscripts and edi­
tions of A ristotelica in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries far outnum ber
those of P la to n ic a .1 Students of medieval Platonism , on the other hand,
have in the last half-century considerably altered our picture of the
“ A risto telian ” M iddle Ages. T hough in num erical term s, again, the
m anuscripts d o cum enting the study of A ristotle far o u tn u m b e r those of
Plato, the indirect transm ission of Platonic thought through the Fathers
and L atin philosophical texts was enough to ensure P la to ’s rank am ong
the great form ative influences upon C hristian philosophy and theology in
the L atin W est. Even in the thirteenth century, the heyday of
A ristotelianism , even in the case of the arch-A ristotelian T hom as
A quinas, the philosophical language and m etaphysical principles of
N eoplatonism continued to interplicate them selves into the fabric o f the
great scholastic system s.2*

1 A convenient introduction to Renaissance Aristotelianism is provided by C. B.

Schmitt, Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), which also contains some
printing statistics for translations of Aristotelica (pp. 154-155); see also F. E. Cranz and
C. B. Schmitt, A Bibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1 5 0 1 -1 6 0 0 , 2nd edn. (Baden-Baden,
1984). These statistics may be compared with the much smaller number of editions of
Plato translations listed in Cat. B. The Renaissance commentaries on Aristotle, surveyed
by C. H. Lohr in Studies in the Renaissance 21 (1974) and RQ_ 28 (1975), 29 (1976), 30
(1977), 31 (1978), 32 (1979), 33 (1980), and 35 (1982), outnumber Renaissance commen­
taries on Plato by about ten to one. For further bibliographic orientation on Renaissance
Aristotelianism, including humanist Aristotelianism, one may now consult CH R P.
2 For a survey of medieval Platonism with the English bibliography see Hankins
(1987a). For further bibliography, one may consult W. Totok, Handbuch der Geschichte der
Philosophic, vol. 2 (Frankfurt a. M., 1980). Platonic strains in the thought of St. Thomas

I
 4 IN T R O D U C T I O N T H E REV IV A L O F PL A T O 3

It is clear, then, that one m ay not speak of the R enaissance as an Age the daw n of the fifteenth century, how ever, there was a dram atic increase
of Plato w ithout serious d istortion of the historical record. It does not, in efforts to m ake Plato available to a L atin readership, efforts m ade al­
how ever, follow that the R enaissance, and particularly the early R en ais­ m ost exclusively by Italian hum anists. L eonardo B runi, U berto Decem-
sance, was not a period of great im p o rtan ce in the history of the Platonic brio, and C encio d e ’ R ustici, all instructed by the em igre G reek M anuel
tradition. T h e period from P etrarch to Ficino was in fact an epoch when C hrysoloras, translated betw een them ten Platonic dialogues, including
the philosophy of P lato was valued and studied m ore than at any time the Gorgias, Onto, Apology, Phaedo and Republic. In the next generation the
since Ju stin ia n closed the A thenian A cadem y in A. D. 529. For those who Republic was translated anew by U b e rto ’s son, Pier C an d id o D ecem brio,
study the sources for the intellectual life of the period, the evidence for and a third tim e by A ntonio C assarino, who also translated two of the
a Platonic revival leaps to the eye. spuria; R inuccio A retino translated the Axiochus, Onto, and Euthyphro; and
In the first place, the fifteenth centu ry saw a sudden increase in the dis­ Francesco Filelfo tu rned the Euthyphro and three of the Letters. A round the
sem ination and study of the Platonic corpus in the L atin W est. T h e in­ m iddle of the century an em igre from V enetian C rete, the hum anist
crease is well illustrated by the history of L atin translations of the G eorge of T reb izo n d , translated reluctantly the Laws and the Parmenides-,
dialogues in the m edieval and R enaissance periods. O f the various works som ew hat later the poet Lorenzo Lippi rendered the Ion, and the great
of Plato we know to have been translated into L atin in an tiq u ity , the only Poliziano began a translation ot the Charmides. T h e translation activity of
versions to survive into the M iddle Ages w ere two partial renderings of the hum anists culm inated in the work of M arsilio Ficino, who in 1484
the Timaeus m ade by C icero and C alcidius, and a n u m b e r of shorter testi- put into p rin t the first com plete L atin version of P la to ’s dialogues and
m onia in C icero s philosophical w ritings, St. A ugustine, and o ther works in 1496 published a series of annotations and com m entaries on the m ajor
of L atin philosophy.3 T h e M iddle Ages added only three dialogues to this dialogues. W hereas a century before, the L atin world possessed only two
patrim ony: some nearly unintelligible versions of the Phaedo and the Meno com plete and two partial versions of the Platonic dialogues, and a
translated in Sicily d u rin g the twelfth cen tu ry by H en ricu s A ristippus, developed com m entary tradition only on the Timaeus, by the end of the
and a partial version of the Parmenides, w ith P ro clu s’ co m m en tary , tra n s­ fifteenth century it had available in the com m on language of learning all
lated by W illiam of M oerbeke in the later th irteen th c e n tu ry .4 W ith thirty-six dialogues of the T hrasyllan canon, the pseudoplatonic Defini-
tiones and Halcyon, and three of the six spuria; and it had, m oreover, a
Aquinas are studied in A. Little, 7 he Platonic Heritage of Thomism (Dublin. 1950); R. J. large and sophisticated body of arg u m en ta, com m entaries and other aids
Henle, St. 7 homas Aquinas and Platonism (The Hague. 1956); C. Fabro, La nozione metajisica to the study of the texts.5*
di partecipazione secondo S. 7 ommaso d ’Aquino. 3rd edn. (Turin, 1963).
For the extant fragments ot Cicero s translation ol the Protagoras, quoted by Priscian A different kind of evidence for a Platonic revival is presented by the
and Donatus, see Opera Ciceronis, ed. Baiter and Kavser (Leipzig, 1869), 8:131-144. em ergence of a new pro-Platonic rhetoric enunciated by m ajor cultural
where are also collected the fragments of Plato translated by Cicero in his various works. figures from P etrarch to Francesco Patrizi da C herso. T h e ju d g m en t that
Cicero s translation ot the Timaeus has been most recently edited bv Remo Giomini
(Teubner. 1975), but little is known ot the medieval tradition of the work; some informa­
Plato was the greater authority in divinis, A ristotle in naturalibus goes back
tion may be tound in Giomini s Ricerche sul testo del Timeo ctceroniano (Rome, 1967). On to an tiq u ity , and through A.ugustine was well know n in the M iddle Ages,
Apuleius translation ot the Phaedo, ot which there are fragments in Priscian, see G. Teuf- b ut from the tim e of P etrarch it becomes som ething of a party b an n er for
fcl. Geschichte der roemischen Literatur, 6th ed. (Berlin, 1910-16), 3:104. For the translations
ot Marius Victorious, see 7 raites theo/ogiques sur la Tnnite , ed. P. Hadot and P. Henry a good m any of the hum anists. M ost h u m anists were critical of the
(Pans, 1960), 1:11. The supposed translation of the Republic mentioned by Albertus scholastic fixation on A ristotle and were anxious to expand the borders
Magnus (In Pol. 2.1) and Fulgentius (Expositio sermonum antiquorum, ed. Lersch, p. 65) is of C h ristian culture so as to em brace a m uch w ider range of ancient
probably a late ancient translation of a Middle Platonic placitum discovered bv Raymond
Khbanskv in BAV, Reg. lat. 1572, ft. 77r-86r, and assigned the title Summanum librorum
authorities. T h e general belief of an tiquity in P lato ’s superiority to
Platon is. For the literature on this translation see E. Pellegrin, et al, Les manusents classiques A ristotle was therefore often in their m ouths as an apt illustration of the
lot ins de la Bibliolheque Vaticane. vol. 2, pt. 1 (Paris, 1978), pp. 294-96. The correct name
ot the work, De Platonis plunbus hbns compendiosa expositio, is preserved in Naples BN MS
IV G 55. f. 15r (ca. 1396). Oddly enough, the humanists seem to have taken no notice ALeno were apparently unknown in Italy until Nicholas of Cusa introduced them later in
ot Cicero s translation ot the Iimaeus until Giorgio Valla composed a commentarv on it the century (see the lists of codices in CPM A, vols. 1 and 3).
m the 1480s (impr. Venice, 1485 = GKW 6756 and Venice. 1492 =GKW 6908; 5 The early Renaissance translations before Ficino are surveyed, with a few omissions,
manuscript copy in l.aur. LXXXIII, 25). in Garin (1955), who also lists a few of the manuscripts in which these texts are preserved.
<)n the medieval tradition ol Plato see Klibanskv ( 1939); the texts of the translations For the textual history of Ficino’s translations, see below, Part IV.2. The Plato transla­
me available in ( ,P \tA , vols. 1-4. 1he medieval translations ot the Parmenides and the tions of the sixteenth century are catalogued for the first time in vol. 2 ot this study.
6 IN T R O D U C TIO N T H E R E V IV A L O F PL A T O 7

riches which a blindered scholasticism was unable to exploit. In tim e, C h risten d o m — the process w hich, according'to B urckhardt, helped bring
how ever, it becam e m ore th an an anti-scholastic topos, developing into a the m edieval w orld to the b rink of m odernity.
serious interest in the dialogues as sources of ancient w isdom .
T h is brings us to the third and m ost significant evidence of a renew al
Motives for the Reception (and Rejection) of Plato
of the Platonic tradition: the reap p earan ce in the latter p art of the fif­
teenth century of C h ristian P latonism as a coherent philosophical school. O n the face of it, the reasons for this revival of Platonism m ay seem to
In the M iddle Ages, the m etaphysical principles and spiritual dynam ics have been accounted for sufficiently in the secondary literatu re already.
now adays associated w ith N eoplatonism had been widely diffused, u su al­ T h ere was a general rebirth of interest in all things classical, it is argued,
ly through indirect sources, and had been generally influential, w ithout so it was n atu ral that the greatest ancient philosopher should figure prom i­
necessarily being associated w ith the views of the Platonici. T h e views of nently in that rebirth. A m ore w idespread know ledge of G reek m ade
the Platonici, on the oth er h and, abstracted chiefly from A ristotle’s possible new translations. T h e hum anists, m oreover, set great store by
tendentious reviews of their thought, were largely identified w ith a doc­ elegance of style, and Plato was known from ancient authority and by
trine of (extradeical) Ideas and an extrem e realism of essences, and these direct contact with his w ritings to be am ong the m ost elegant writers of
were doctrines w hich even the m ore realist of scholastic doctors, such as antiquity. T h e hum anists, like Plato, believed that in educating a ruling
Scotus or H en ry of G h en t, were unw illing to identify simpliciter with their elite lay the best hope of political and m oral reform . A desire for harm ony
own positions.6 In the fifteenth cen tu ry , how ever, this situation changed. and a hatred of dogm atism were am ong the deepest im pulses of the age,
T h e critical tendencies of fo u rteen th -cen tu ry thought had m ade the and Plato seem ed attractive on both these counts. Som e w riters like
N eoplatonic b ackground of the via antiqua stand out m ore clearly as a P etrarch saw the dialogues, with their ap p aren t tentativeness and o pen­
distinct set of m etaphysical assum ptions, and the recovery of pagan ness to conviction, as w eapons against dogm atism . O th ers like C usanus
N eoplatonism and new works of the G reek F athers m ade it possible to and Bessarion saw the elevation of noetic intuition above discursive
trace the links betw een pagan P latonism and the earlier stages of C h ris­ reason in Platonism as an escape from incessant and fruitless scholastic
tian thought. In other w ords the view was em erging that it was quibbling, as the basis for a theology of concord which could heal the divi­
Platonism , not A ristotelianism or “ n o m in a lism ” , w hich had supplied sions of C h ristendom . M oreover, in an age disposed to celebrate the
the philosophical arm o ry of early C h ristian thought. In an age whose dignity of m an , Plato presented one of the highest views im aginable of the
own faith was in crisis and w hich looked to an tiquity for its cultural pow er and destiny of the h u m an soul. Finally, his religious doctrine was
m odels, Platonism thus ap p eared to som e m en as a peculiarly C h ristian also in certain respects deeply reassuring. St. A ugustine, in an utterance
philosophy able to save the faith from in tern al and external threats to its quoted again and again in the R enaissance, had said th at the Platonists
existence. H ence with C u san u s, Bessarion and preem inently w ith Ficino were of all philosophers the closest to C h ristianity. Fifteenth-century
there em erges for the first tim e since a n tiq u ity an avow ed and self-con­ C h ristian s— and this included virtually all hum anists and scholastics—
scious C h ristian P latonism , seeking the reform of C h ristian theology by were quick to find co rro borating evidence in the new L atin translations.
retu rn in g it to its P latonic sources. W hereas A ristotle had encouraged heresy w ith his doctrine of the eternity
In short, we have in the fifteenth cen tu ry a period w hen P la to ’s works of the world and his am biguous views on the im m ortality of the soul, Plato
were recovered and studied w ith new intensity, and w hen there began a was know n from the Timaeus to have believed in creation, and from the
broad renew al of interest in him as a theologian and “ c o u n te rc u ltu ral” Phaedo and o th er dialogues to have proved the soul’s im m ortality. T he
au th o r. As such, it represents an im p o rtan t, indeed central, p art of that Gorgias, Phaedo, Phaedrus, and Republic ended in m yths of the afterlife,
general reorientation o f C h ristian culture with respect to its classical past w here souls w ere seen to receive rew ards and pu n ish m en ts according to
which we refer to as the R enaissance. A study of the Platonic revival of their deeds in the present life. It appears, in short, an easy m atter to find
the fifteenth centu ry should, then, give us a special insight into the affinities enough betw een Platonic and R enaissance styles of thought to
classicization, or (to use an even uglier word) re-classicization of account for the p erio d ’s renew ed interest in P la to .7

'’ For the scholastics’ knowledge ol Plato see the passages collected by Henle (cited in 7 The preceding is a composite picture of the causes of the Platonic revival confected
note 2) and by L. Gaul in Alberts des Grossen Verhaeltnis zu Plato, Beitraege zur Geschichte from H. von Stein, Sieben Buecher zur Geschichte des Platomsmus (Goettingen, 1862-75; repr.
der Philosophic des Mittelalters, 12.1 (Muenster, 191.3). Frankfurt, 1965), volume III; Ch. Huit, “ Le Platonisme pendant la Renaissance,”
 IN T R O D U C T I O N T H E R EV IV A L O F P L A T O 9

Such arg u m en ts are all no d o u b t tru e enough as far as they go, but it sion in the senses, and to ascend through dialectic and philosophical eros
m ay well be asked w hether in the end they really constitute an ex p lan a­ to the “ unhypothesized first principles” , the Ideas, which were at once
tion. R h u m b lines are d raw n from selected Platonic doctrines to selected the causes of sensible experience, the exem plars of virtue, and the first
characteristics o f the “ R enaissance m in d ’’, and one is expected to con­ principles of rational thought. T h is was not how ever an experience open
clude that som e fatal attractio n existed betw een Plato and an entity called to everyone; it belonged only to those aristocrats of the m ind who lived
“ the R en aissan ce’’ or “ H u m a n is m ’’. S im ilar stories, equally convincing a philosophic life and had been specially educated to abandon the senses
and well docum en ted , m ay of course be told for A ristotle or A ugustine, by an extended training in such subjects as m athem atics and logic. T he
for Stoicism o r nom inalism . As each story necessarily assum es the “ R e ­ philosophic life dem anded isolation from sophism and popular poetry
naissance m in d ” or “ H u m a n is m ” to display som ew hat different ch arac­ such as the H om eric epics, it dem anded (at least in the Republic) ap­
teristics, the concepts being used as the in stru m en t of explanation parently bizarre forms of social intercourse, such as m arital and m aterial
threaten in the end to becom e perfectly em pty. T h e m ore objects they com m unism . But it was only through the presence of such “ friends of the
denote, the fewer they connote. F o rm s” that social and political and cultural life could hope for a true
M oreover, to a m odern stu d en t with som e knowledge of Plato and of reform ation. T h e philosopher alone could rule w ithout discord, since
Renaissance culture this style of explan atio n m ust seem seriously in ­ discord was caused by injustice and he alone knew w hat true justice was.
com plete. For while it is true that the P latonic corpus contains m uch that T h e philosopher alone could reform language and rhetoric, since he
m ight be attractive to the thinkers of the early R enaissance, it equally alone knew the realities, the true value of the coins the vulgar traded in.
contains m uch that ought to have been deeply antagonistic to the cultural T h e philosopher alone (it was im plied in the Laws) could distinguish
values of their class and period. m orally edifying poetry from poetry that was harm ful to piety and virtue.
Plato, after all, had been a nearly classic case of the internal exile: an T h e philosopher alone could m ake societies and his own soul blessed,
aristocrat thoroughly alienated from the dem ocratic culture of A thens, since he alone knew w hat true blessedness w as.8*
who defended his internal polity by co n stru ctin g a pow erfully counterin- It is difficult at first sight to see how such a philosophical outlook could
tuitional philosophical outlook. Intellectual revenge took the form of a have been attractive to the professional literary m en of the fifteenth cen­
merciless an ato m izin g o f co n tem p o rary A thens. Its heroes w ere shown to tury who are now adays know n as “ h u m a n ists” . As a class they were by
be self-seeking dem agogues; its political life was but the interplay of irra ­ and large either courtiers or w hat we should today call high-level civil ser­
tional passions; its art, poetry and eloquence were vitiated by false im ita­ vants: diplom ats, teachers, b u reau crats, defenders of the status quo. M any
tion, deception, and im piety. P la to ’s solution to the problem s of of them were of relatively hum ble birth. N early all of them were u nem ­
A thenian cultu re lay in a kind of ratio n al m ysticism w hich sought to barrassed apologists for the princes and oligarchic regim es they served;
escape the vice and confusion o f the vulgar, occasioned by their im m er­ am ong their chief duties were indeed the celebration of their p a tro n s’ vir­
tues an d trium phs and the m asking of their failures. W hatever their p er­
in Annales de philosophie chretienne, n. s., 32 (1895): 366-395; ibid. 33 (1895/96): 35-47, sonal excesses, few or none m ade system atic criticism s of conventional
269-283, 362-372, 617-628; ibid. 34 (1896): 370-387, 581-600; ibid. 35 (1896/97): piety and m orality. If there was an elem ent of criticism in hum anist social
195-221, 543-564; ibid. 36 (1897): 418-434; ibid. 37 (1898): 155-183, 421-434, 579-589;
Della Torre (q.v.); E. Gothein, Platons Staatslehre in der Renaissance (Heidelberg, 1912); G. views, it was to elevate virtue and ability above b irth as a criterion of
Gentile, Le ongini della filosofia contemporanea in Italia, vol. I: I Platonici (Rome, 1925); C. nobility.
Baeumker, Der Platonismus im Mittelalter and Mittelalterlicher und Renaissance Platonismus, M oreover, the ideals of culture the hum anists prom oted represented in
Beitraege zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, 25.1-2 (Muenster, 1928), pp.
139-193; B. Nardi, “ II platonismo nel medioevo e nell’eta moderna,” in Enciclopedia some respects exactly the sort of thing that Plato was disposed to criticize.
itahana, vol. 27 (1935): 521-524; N. A. Robb, Neoplatonism of the Italian Renaissance (Lon­
don, 1935); Kieszkowski (q.v.), esp. 39f. ;J. Kurde, Platon und die Staatslehre der italienischen
Fruehrenaissance (diss. Breslau, 1939); Klibansky (1939); Klibansky (1943); R. Marcel, 3 For my account of Plato here and elsewhere I rely on A. E. Taylor, Plato, the Man
“ Le platonisme des Petrarque a Leon l’Hebreu,” in Association Guillaume Bude, Congres and His Work (London, 1926); P. Shorey, What Plato Said (Chicago, 1933); G. M. A.
de Tours et Poitiers (Paris, 1954), pp. 293-319; Garin (1955); E. Garin, Studi sul platonismo Grube, Plato’s Thought (London, 1935); R. Robinson, Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, 2nd edn.
medievale (Florence, 1958); Garin (1969); G. Holmes, The Florentine Enlightenment (Lon­ (Oxford, 1953); E. A. Havelock, Preface to Plato (Cambridge, Mass., 1962); Plato: A Collec­
don, 1969), esp. chapters 4 and 8; J.-Cl. Margolin, “ Platon et Aristote a la Renais­ tion of Critical Essays, ed. G. Vlastos, 2 vols. (New York, 1971); Guthrie (q.v.), vols. 4
sance,’’ B H R 36 (1974): 157-173; Garin (1983); C H R P , esp. 5571'.; but the picture is and 5 (with extensive bibliography); G. Vlastos, Platonic Studies (Princeton, 1973); K. M.
widely diftused in other secondary literature as well. Sayre, Plato ’s Late Ontology: A Riddle Resolved (Princeton, 1983).
10 IN TR O D U C TIO N T H E R E V IV A L O F P L A T O 11

T h e hum anists were com m itted to reviving the literary and rhetorical apparently believed in the preexistence an d transm igration of souls. A
education of the classical aristocracy, a form of education descended (for determ ined C h ristian izer could, studying the account of creation in the
the hum anists via C icero) from P la to ’s great rival Isocrates. T h e basis of Timaeus, identify the dem iurge with C hrist and the Form s with Ideas in
this culture was the im itation of exem plary form s of speech and behavior the m ind of G od. But it was difficult to know w hat to do with the “ recep­
found in a fixed canon of literary texts— an education precisely analogous tacle” , the chaotic m atter w hich was explicitly stated (52D) to have ex­
to the H om eric education so severely criticized by Plato in the Republic isted from all eternity, in direct contradiction of the C h ristian ex nihilo.10
and the Ion. O ne of the great crusades o f early hum anism was the defense T he dialogues (especially the Laws) on a literal reading seem ed to favor
of the reading of pagan poets against religious philistines who charged the strongly the traditional cult of the gods— the same gods which early
poets with m orally co rru p tin g effects; P la to ’s expulsion of H o m er from C h ristianity had identified with dem ons. T h o u g h m edieval C hristianity
his ideal polity becam e in this context a persistent source of em b arrass­ had accepted a class of alarm ing b ut “ theologically n e u tra l” spirits— the
m ent. T he hum anists hoped the trad itio n al art of rhetoric could be an in ­ longaevi, elves, N erei, Pans and spirits of wood and w ater of the
strum ent of m oral reg en eratio n ; Plato had held it to be an agent of prem odern im ag in atio n — it was inscribed in canon law that dem onic in­
falsehood and co rruption. T h e h u m an ists were m oving tow ards a view spiration was a device of S atan to co rrupt the hum an race and required
of language as conventional and historically and culturally contingent; exorcism . Yet Socrates had openly adm itted, alm ost boasted, that he was
Plato in the Cratylus saw G reek (at least) as a corrupted form of n atu ral attended by a daimonion who guided his m oral and intellectual life. Final­
language. An aim of h u m an ist ed u catio n was fam ously the creation of the ly, though it m ay be debated w hether or not Plato indulged in hom osex­
m any-sided “ R enaissance m a n ’’, who could as readily com pose a L atin ual practices, he at any rate did not blush to depict scenes of homosexual
elegy as he could appraise a p a in tin g o r jo u st in a to u rn am en t; b ut this gallantry and to use the language of hom osexual rom ance and seduction
for Plato was m ere poikilia, a dazzling versatility w ithout real u n d e r­ in such dialogues as the Charmides, Lysis, Phaedrus and Symposium, and
standing. Finally the h u m an ists, as the representatives o f a cultivated lay sim ilar language could be found in the pseudo-Platonic poem s preserved
public, were them selves very often oppo n en ts of clericalism — of the claim in D iogenes L aertius and o ther sources.
m ade by university-educated clerks to som e special intellectual an d m oral It m ay be thought that h u m an powers of m isreading are fully equal to
authority derived from a scientific tra in in g in theology or canon law .9 the tasks of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi th at would be required to con­
But a claim to au th o rity based on this kind of know ledge-claim was u n ­ ceal these conflicts betw een the Platonic corpus and R enaissance cultural
com fortably sim ilar to the justificatio n s m ade in the Republic an d the values. But though willful m isreading there certainly w a s,11 there were
Laws of the auth o rity of the “ g u a rd ia n s” and nomopby lakes. equally long traditions both of pagan and of C h ristian antiplatonism in
P lato ’s philosophy was not only at odds w ith h u m anist culture. It also the W est whose effect was to b rin g the unassim ilable elem ents in P lato ’s
contained elem ents profoundly tro u b lin g to the larger C h ristian culture thought and w ritings com pellingly to the attention of contem pories.
of the early R enaissance. It is tru e th at P lato had (arguably) held som e­ T h e rivalry of philosophical schools in an tiq u ity , for exam ple, and the
thing like a C h ristian doctrin e o f creatio n , and he had undoubtedly fu rther rivalry of rhetoric and philosophy, had produced a store of
believed in the im m ortality of the soul. But increasing fam iliarity w ith negative biographical gossip about Plato w hich was handed dow n in vari­
the dialogues would disclose o th er doctrines less easy to reconcile w ith ous com pendia and allusions in the pagan w rite rs.12 W ith the spreading
orthodoxy. T h o u g h P lato had believed in im m ortality, he had also
10 For the various interpretations of Plato’s account of creation, see R. Sorabji, Time,
Creation, and the Continuum: Theories in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Cornell, 1983),
9 See A. Murray, Reason and Society in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1978; repr. with correc­ esp. pp. 268-276.
tions 1985), chapters 10-12. The humanists themselves of course frequently emphasized 11 Among the more amusing examples is one found in some annotations to the Republic
the need to join power and wisdom, that is, the need for aristocrats to be humanistically by the famous humanist educator Guarino: after Plato has argued for ten pages that
educated or to have humanist advisers. It was in this context that they so often quoted women are the equals of men and should consequently share the burdens of rule, Guarino
Plato’s most famous maxim (from the Republic) that states would not be happy until either writes in the margin: “ A civilibus muneribus abstineant mulieres. Diversitas ingeniorum
philosophers ruled or rulers became philosophers. But they did not mean by philosophy [sc. inter mares et feminas]. Deterior conditio mulierum in omnibus.” See Hankins
a body of knowledge deduced necessarily from indubitable first principles, as did the (1987b), p. 186.
scholastics and, mutatis mutandis, Plato; their idea of wisdom most closely resembled that 12 For the ancient biographical tradition, see Riginos (q.v.), F. Novotny, “ Die antiken
of the Second Sophistic: wide information based on reading of the classics, experience, Platon-Legenden, Verherrlichung und Verleumdung, ” in Mnema Vladimir Groh (Prague,
eloquence and adherence to traditional moral values. 1964), pp. 161-179; and the remarks of G. Faurelle, cited in the next note.
 12 IN TRO D U C TIO N T H E R E V IV A L O F P L A T O 13

knowledge ot G reco-L atin literatu re in the early R enaissance, these them from M oses and the H ebrew prophets. H ence too a certain glee in
pagan anecdotes proved a persistent source of em b arrassm en t to R en ais­ po in tin g out P la to ’s lapses from the highest (C hristian) standards of
sance cham pions of Plato, forcing them , for instance, to take seriously m orality.
the depictions of hom osexual practices in the dialogues. In addition to these m ore balanced criticism s of Plato, C h ristian a n ti­
M uch m ore im p o rtan t for the R enaissance, how ever, were the C h ris­ quity presented the R enaissance with som e thoroughly unam biguous
tian authorities who attacked P la to ’s life and doctrine. From antiquity specim ens of antiplatonism . In T e rtu llia n ’s Prescription against Heretics, the
P lato ’s thought had exercised an altern ativ e attraction and repulsion p ag an philosophers were attacked as the “ patriarchs of heretics” and
upon C h ristian thinkers. A lready in the G ospel of J o h n and in some of Plato was singled out as a particularly dangerous influence. “ W hat has
the P auline epistles there is a certain receptivity to broadly Platonic no­ A thens to do with Jeru salem ? W hat has the A cadem y to do with the
tions, and by the tim e of the first real C h ristia n philosophers, Ju stin M a r­ C h u rc h ? ” T h e attitude was to be frequently echoed by religious critics
tyr and C lem ent of A lexandria, C h ristian ity was ready to welcome Plato of philosophy in the succeeding centuries. Je ro m e was to be beaten by
alm ost unreservedly as an ally in the battle against pagan m yth and angels for reading Plato as well as C icero. R enaissance hum anists would
c u lt.1* In tim e, how ever, C h ristian s were forced to be m ore circum spect not have know n the antiplatonic treatises of H ippolytus of R om e or of
in their attitude to the great pagan philosopher. T he dangers of too great the heretic M arcellus of A ncvra, but as early as the m id-fifteenth cen­
an enthusiasm for Plato m ade them selves felt in the case of O rigen, and tu ry , if not earlier, they cam e in contact with the Curatio morborum
the great third -cen tu rv polem ics of the N eoplatonist P orphyry against the graecorum of T heo d o ret of C yr, a com pendium of all the theological errors
C hristians tended to m ake m ore explicit the differences betw een C h ris­ of G reek philosophy, with P la to ’s philosophy playing a prom inent role.
tian theology and what passed for P latonism . T h e em ergence and con­ T h eo d o ret followed Eusebius in regarding pagan philosophy as a con­
dem nation of the A rian heresy in the fourth century m ade it m ore fused and co rru p t borrow ing from the “ eastern w isdom ” of M oses and
difficult to assim ilate the su b o rd in atio n ist intelligible cosmos of (Neo-) the prophets, but was still m ore outspoken in claim ing that w hatever the
Platonism with the consubstantial C h ristian T rin ity . In the fourth and philosophers did not steal from the H ebrew s was dangerously wrong. In
fifth centuries the characteristic C h ristian attitu d e to Plato thus becam e the last book he handed dow n as fact a large portion of the malicious
m ore am biguous. T h in k ers like E usebius, L actantius, Je ro m e , and gossip of an tiquity about the personal lives of Socrates and Plato.
A ugustine w anted, in effect, both to have th eir cake and eat it. O n the T h eo d o ret .vas to be an im p o rtan t source for such R enaissance an-
one hand they were anxious to show the h arm o n y betw een Platonism and tiplatonists as Scholarios, G eorge of T reb izo n d , and Z anobi Acciaiuoli.
C hristianity so as to dem o n strate to pagans th at their highest wisdom led In d eed , it m ust always be borne in m ind that this “ antiplatonic tra d i­
ineluctably to C h ristian ity . O n the oth er h an d they had to show that the tio n ” was never du rin g the early R enaissance confined to the dead letter.
philosophical m ysteries of C h ristian ity w ere even higher than the As will be am ply shown in the sequel, the dead letter of the antiplatonic
Platonic wisdom the pagans claim ed lay behind their m yths and cultic trad itio n was to be continuously revived in the living voices of P lato ’s
practices. But the early C h ristian s in h ab ited a theological universe in early R enaissance critics, from G iovanni D om inici to S avonarola. By the
which philosophical e rro r was typically in terp reted as the effect of m oral end of the fifteenth century, P la to ’s critics w ould com e close to the view
failure or dem onic inspiration. H ence E u seb iu s’ view (echoed m ore fam ously enunciated by R o b ert B ellarm ine in the following century: that
reservedly by A ugustine and Je ro m e ) th at if Plato had discovered certain Plato was indeed the closest of all pagan philosophers to C h ristianity, and
truth s about G od, creation, and the afterlife, he m ust have plagiarized it was precisely this that m ade him the m ost dangerous of all philosophers
to the faith.
" For a survey of patristic attitudes to Plato, see R. Arnou, “ Platonisme des peres,”
in Dictionnaire de theolooie catholique, vol. 12 (1935), cols. 2258-2392; J. H. Waszink,
“ Bemerkun^en zutn Kintluss des Platonismus im truehen Christentum,” Vigiliae Chris- Current Explanations of the Platonic Revival and Their Limits
hanaf 19 (19(F)): 129-182; and on the Alexandrian Fathers H. Chadwick, Early Christian
Ihoutfht and Crirk Philosophy (Oxlord, 1966), and the verv useful survey bv G. F'aurellc, T h e re w ere, then, some real obstacles to the reception ol the Platonic cor­
I-e platonisme d Kusebe", in Etisehe de Cesaree: La preparation evani’e/ique, Livre XI, pus into the religious and literary culture of the early R enaissance. If,
Sources ( -hrei iennes, no. 292 (Paris. 1982). pp. 239-391. Further' detail with full
bibliographies may be found in t he Cambridge History of Later Creek and Early Medieval Phi­ how ever, one looks to the scholarly literatu re for an explanation of how
losophy. ed. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge, 1970). Plato succeeded in navigating these hostile w aters, there is very lim ited
14 IN T RO D U C TIO N T H E REV IV A L O F PL A TO 15

help to be found. T h e literatu re offers us grosso modo two explanations, T h e m ore sophisticated explanation of bow Plato m ade his way into
a sim ple one and a m ore sophisticated one. T he sim pler explanation, the C h ristian culture of the fifteenth century argues that differences in
favored chiefly by historians of classical scholarship, in general sim ply cultural b ackground regulated the perceptions of readers, and that these
fails to recognize the obstacles. It attrib u tes to the h u m anists an a n ti­ perceptions issued in broad interpretations of Plato which rendered his
q u arian love of the classics u n en cu m b ered by the prejudices of their age; doctrine com patible with the read er’s general outlook. T h u s G arin
it sees them , anachronistically, as detached professional scholars and argues th at the reception of Plato in the early R enaissance should be seen
gentlem en interested in a “ su b ject” for its own sak e.14 O n this view, to in two stages, each of which reflects an underlying political reality .16*In
read unorthodox or im m oral passages in Plato w ould not d istu rb the the earlier stage, lasting roughly from P etrarch to B runi, (Florentine)
com placency of the h u m an ist, because the h u m a n ist’s real interest in his society is still relatively open and the political forms of the free m edieval
reading was to u n d erstan d objectively w hat an ancient au th o r thought com m une have not entirely lost their m eaning. Students of Plato in this
and what the ancient w orld was like. A lternatively, it m ay recognize period tend to adopt an “ academ ic skeptical” in terp retatio n of Plato
prem odern in terp retatio n s as attem p ts to come to term s with which focusses on the critical and open-ended character of the Platonic
unassim ilable elem ents in the text, but sees these interp retatio n s simply dialogue. T h ey find the free and inquiring spirit of Plato refreshing after
as m istakes, to be explained by the ignorance, stupidity an d backw ard­ the A ristotelian dogm atism of the M iddle Ages; they are attracted by the
ness of previous ages. practical m oral tone of the Socratic dialogues, which contrasts strongly
Aside from its “ chronological sn o b b ery ” , w hat this view neglects is the w ith the “ useless” disputes on n atural phenom ena they see as
fact that professional or an tiq u a ria n scholarship of this kind was characteristic of A ristotelian school philosophy. As real political actors
unknow n in the early R enaissance, an d the whole notion of historical them selves, they are fascinated by the “ rational city ” Plato designs in his
“ objectivity” existed only in a very ru d im en tary and unconscious Republic. In the second stage of P lato ’s reception, how ever, lasting
fo rm .15 A detached interest in a “ su b ject” presupposes an organization roughly from the C ouncil of Florence in 1438-39 until the end of the cen­
of the scholarly co m m unity and the developm ent of styles of reading and tu ry , a tran sfo rm atio n takes place in the social and political world of
canons of in terp retatio n w hich in the fifteenth century did not exist, or Florence. T h e M edici regim e puts an end to free civic life, and places the
existed only in an em bryonic form . O n the o ther h and m ost hum anists artists and literati u n d er the spell of an artificial court life centered, not
were an y th in g but detached in the appro ach they took at least to the chief in the open civic space, but in the suburban villa, in an ivory tower of
classical auth o rs. E stablishing the studia humanitatis as a new educational political ineffectiveness. R educed to political dependency, in flight from
program m e in the teeth of the prejudices of tradition req u ired the early the w orld, the “ M edici intellectuals” look to Plato for validation of their
hum anists to defend the virtue and w isdom of the ancient pagan au thors experience. B ut it is not the old critical, practical Plato of the first period,
at every tu rn . If the im itation of the values and discourse of pagan b u t a new religious, m etaphysical Plato. “ Dopo il P latone m orale, ecco
literatu re was to be the basis of aristocratic education, it was vital for the il Platone teologo, il “ d iv in o ” Platone, il pensatore religioso, il ‘M ose at-
w ritings of the chief p agan au th o rs to be widely perceived as com patible ticizzan te’. ” T h e new Plato teaches the thinkers of the late fifteenth ceh-
with C h ristian belief and m ores. T h e im portance the hum anists attached tury to look w ithin for the sources of pow er, to seek in the Beyond for
to this point is am ply d em o n strated not only by their explicit statem ents justice and h arm ony; hence they seek in Plato him self not social criticism
to this effect, but also by the elaborate efforts they m ade to bow dlerize, or open-ended debate, but a system atic theology, a new philosophical
C hristianize and otherw ise control the perceptions readers could form of revelation.
the pagan classics. In later p arts of this book I shall have to quarrel w ith a n u m b er of p a r­
ticular features in this m odel of P lato ’s reception; here, how ever, I wish
m ore generally to consider its lim itations as a strategy for u n d erstanding
14 The general attitude is exemplified by such modern scholars as R. R. Bolgar and
Rudolf Pfeiffer, as well as (for all their high merits) older authorities like Sandys and
how Plato was absorbed by a culture hostile in m any respects to his
Rcmigio Sabbadini; the attitude has rightly been criticized by Baron (1955), passim, and beliefs and values. M y objection is not that this style of explanation is in
Garin (1983), p. 14. itself w rong-headed; indeed, G arin , with H ans B aron, deserves credit for
'■ Though the term "objectivity” belongs to the nineteenth century, it has a
prehistory stretching back to Bruni. For the literature on the history of historicism, see
below, note 36. I6 Garin (1969), pp. 263-292.
 16 IN T R O D U C TIO N T H E R E V IV A L O F PL A T O 17

opening up a way of thinking about the R enaissance reception of classical an ad equate explanation for why the scientific com m unity accepted the
antiquity that is far m ore historical th an w hat had been custom ary before Special T h eo ry of R elativity. A n adequate explanation w ould also have
he wrote. T h e difficulty is ra th e r th at G a r in ’s kind of explanation is to include the truth-conditions of the theory itself,19 and such “ second-
seriously incom plete, on the psychological level, as an account of w hat o rd e r” conditions as the m ethodological principles em braced by the
went on in R enaissance textual exegesis. W e are expected to believe that scientific com m unity, the existence of experim ental m eans to test the
R enaissance exegetes read th ro u g h dialogues of Plato w hich directly con­ theory, the degree and kind of discipline the scientific com m unity exer­
tradicted their most cherished beliefs ab o u t him w ithout noticing the con­ cised over its m em bers, and so on. In this context, the instrum entality
tradictions; we are asked to think that a b ackground of unconscious or of political radicalism m ight be shown to qualify as a necessary condi­
irrational causes o perated upon them in such a way as to im pose wholly tion, b ut it is ultim ately a ra th e r rem ote, and certainly a far from suffi­
im plausible in terp retatio n s on their readings of the texts. A ssum ing as it cient condition.
does that R enaissance exegetes possessed the same canons of in te rp re ta ­ In the sam e way, explanations for the revival of Plato which allude
tion and styles of read in g as are used today, this variety of explanation to H u m an ism , the R enaissance, the classical revival, changing political
can only explain incorrect readings as a kind of subrational response to conditions etc. m ay be true, but they are too abstract and incom plete
unconscious causes. Like the species of explanation m entioned earlier, to im p art a genuine u n d erstan d in g of the reasons for the phenom ena.
that of divining abstract h arm o n ies betw een Platonism and the spirit of T ru ly to un d erstan d the genesis of such (to us) im plausible in te rp re ta ­
the age, it tends to u n d ercu t the ratio n ality of historical actors by im ply­ tions of Plato as the R enaissance produced, we need to descend to the
ing, in effect, that their ju d g m e n t was w arped by particip atio n in great study of m ore su b lu n ar p henom ena such as the history of teaching tra d i­
historical m ovem ents like H u m an ism o r the R enaissance. T h is kind of tions, the developm ent of in terpretative principles and techniques, and
explanation m ay satisfy m ore extrem e practitioners of the sociology of the structure of in terpretative com m unities such as schools and u n iver­
knowledge, psychohistory, stru ctu ral anthropology, M arxist criticism , sities; and we need to collate such “ second-order” conditions with the
and all those who are content to explain h u m a n behavior in purely “ ex­ rational argum ents used by exegetes to support their interpretations. In
te rn a l” term s, using various form s of “ deep in te rp re ta tio n ” ; it m ay short, the habits and conditions of in terp retatio n m ust them selves be
satisfy H egelians who look on previous ages as less than fully conscious considered as historical phenom ena.
than ours of R e a s o n .17 But those who prefer not to think of o u r ancestors T h e plan of this book is hence to leave aside for the m ost part “ exter­
as any m ore the puppets of historical “ forces” than we are will dem an d n alist” accounts which appeal to rem ote social conditions and broad
a m ore com plete account. A nd those who insist that conscious reasons are cu ltural or political m ovem ents, and to try instead to u n d erstan d the
also causes, th at the tru th -co n d itio n s of a belief are at least p art of the R enaissance revival of Plato by re-evoking the im m ediate conditions,
reason why it is held, will req u ire an account which m akes sense of the the debates and the herm eneutical principles and aim s of the p erio d .20
activities of R enaissance exegetes by reconstructing the herm eneutical It will be seen that this task overlaps to a considerable extent with the
conditions w hich m ade a given in te rp re ta tio n rational for co n tem ­ project of u n d erstan d in g how and why contem poraries in terp reted Plato
poraries. the way they did. It is in fact one of the theses of this book that R en ais­
An exam ple from the history of science m ay serve to m ake the point sance in terp retatio n s of Plato can to a great extent be read as the results
clearer. Let us suppose th at L. S. F euer is correct to say that no one of rational attem pts to introduce or expel Plato from contem porary
would have been interested in E in ste in ’s new ideas ab o u t space an d tim e C h ristian cultu re— rational, that is to say, in the context of contem ­
in 1905 if they had not already becom e accustom ed to radical new po rary herm eneutical aim s and practices.
political id e a s.18 T h is m ay be perfectly tru e, b u t no one would say it was

19 As is argued forcefully bv W. H. Newton-Smith in 1 he Rationality oj Science (London,

In this respect at least there is no difference between the assumptions of some older 1981), from which also the example is taken.
kinds of intellectual history and the “ new social history” ; they are both varieties of “ deep 20 It is a point frequently neglected by opponents ol traditional history and criticism
interpretation” (for which term see Arthur Danto in the Journal oj Philosophy [1981]: that a correct explanation of the “ externalist” kind presupposes a correct explanation ol
891-708). the “ internalist” kind. One cannot reduce phenomena to supposedly more primary
IH hinstem and the Generations of Science (New York, 1974). causes unless one first establishes the precise character ol those phenomena.
18 IN TRO D U C TIO N T H E R E V IV A L O F PL A TO 19

Towards a Typology of Reading in the Fifteenth Century and Priscian; the trad itio n was em ployed in schools th roughout the
M iddle Ages and R enaissance and still survives in a m odified form to­
In order, then, to avoid an achronism in the study of early R enaissance day in school com m entaries on classical authors. T h e aim of doctrinal
interpreters of Plato, we m ust first have a grasp of the form s of reading reading is to use the text of the auctores as an arm atu re upon which to
and interpretation in use am o n g fifteenth-century exegetes of classical hang m oral lessons and an encyclopedic knowledge of all the arts and
and other kinds of texts. But at present there unfortunately exists no sciences {historia). T his aim is accom plished by linking key words or
study which provides the sort of survey we require. I have set out here, passages in the text to m arginal glosses or lem m atic com m entaries; the
therefore, a kind of w orking typology, which I hope future research will text itself thus becom es a kind of “ m em ory palace” to help the student
be able to refine and com plete. W h atev er its lim its, the typology will at retain w hat he has learned. A glossator typically will explain difficult
least provide us with a vocabulary for describing sum m arily the o rie n ta ­ w ords and syntactical cruces, point out rhetorical figures and construc­
tion of different R enaissance exegetes of the Platonic co rp u s.21 tion, explicate m ythological figures and stories, allegories, facts of
T h e distinctiones here established am ong various form s of reading are natu ral history, cosm ology, geography, historical allusions, and,
m ade, if we m ay em ploy scholastic term inology, according to their causae especially in the later M iddle Ages, draw m oral lessons. Im portant
finales, to the m ain purposes readers h ad in reading texts. It is not of assum ptions of doctrinal reading are that the auctores are infinitely wise
course claimed that R enaissance readers were conscious of engaging in and good, that they were m oved to w rite prim arily by the desire to
all these m odes of reading. N or is it claim ed that readers used ju st one educate the h u m an race, and that their w ritings are thus treasuries of
kind of reading at a tim e. In fact, the sam e text, som etim es the sam e page civilized know ledge. Intentio auctons est docere. T h e rhythm ic charm s of
of a text, often displays signs of various form s of reading conducted sim ­ poetry were devices to ren d er this deposit lovely and m em orable. T he
ultaneously. au th o r taught by devising symbols, allegories, and analogies under
(1) Meditative reading. In the E u ro p ean tradition, this form of reading which tru th m ight be hidden; the effort of unveiling these m ysteries was
goes back to the sacra lectio St. B enedict prescribed for m onks u n d e r his healthful exercise for the m ind which at the same tim e rendered the
Rule (cap. 48), and continues in religious com m unities to the present day. truths so revealed the m ore dear as having been the fruit of difficult
It aim s to reinforce faith and com m unity, and to induce a certain exalted labor. T h e au th o r also tau g h t by celebrating instances of adm irable con­
state of m ind. T h e text, like a religious icon, is used as a w indow on the duct (exempla) and by confecting through his literary art m em orable u t­
divine. R ead in g is done very slowly; each passage is allowed to dissolve terances, or sententiae. T h e read er took possession of this repertory of art
in the m ind like a lozenge. Passages ten d to be cut into small pieces, and and wisdom through m em orization and im itation. H ence doctrinal
the best pieces rearran g ed in florilegia, m editations, or pensees. C ontext reading, too, is necessarily slow and laborious, and tends to overw helm
is u n im p o rtan t, and criticism of any kind is positively lethal, as St. the personal voice and the context. A lthough by the late fifteenth cen­
Benedict him self seems to have realized w hen he forbade questions to be tury some ru d im en tary source criticism can be found in hum anist doc­
raised d u rin g refectory read in g (cap. 3 8 ).22 trinal com m entaries, the typical m edieval and early R enaissance
(t2) Doctrinal reading (or historia).23*T h e chief sources for the E u ro p ean
160-175, 186-216, 274-291; B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the M iddle Ages, 3nd edn.
tradition of doctrinal read in g are the late ancient g ram m arians Servius
(Oxford, 1982); B. Sandkuehler, Die fruehen Dantekommentare und ihr Verhaeltnis zur mittelal-
terlichen Kommentartradition , Muenchner romanistische Arbeiten, 19 (Munich, 1967), esp.
Most older historians of literary criticism such as Spingarn or Weinberg tend to pp. 13-24 for a sketch of the history of commentary; R. B. C. Huygens, Accessus ad Auc­
neglect practice for what they (anachronistically) take to be theory, and most ignore or tores, Bernard d ’Utrecht, Conrad d ’Hirsau “ Diatogus super Auctores” (Leiden, 1970); E.
skim over the fifteenth century. There have recently emerged, however, some more Jeauneau, “ Gloses et commentaires de textes philosophiques (IXe-XIIe siecles),” in Les
historically oriented studies of the medieval practice of commentary and reading, for genres Utteraires dans les sources theologiques et philosophiques medievales: Definition, critique et ex­
which one may consult the books and articles cited in the following notes. ploitation (Louvain, 1982), pp. 117-131; J. B. Allen, The Ethical Poetic of the Later Middle
22 On the lectio divina, see J. Leclercq, L ’amour des lettres et le desir de Dieu. Initiation aux Ages: A Decorum of Convenient Distinction (Toronto, 1982); N. M. Haering, “ Commentary
auteurs monastiques du Moyen Age (Paris, 1957), esp. pp. 19-25; P. Riche (next note), pp. and Hermeneutics,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. R. L. Benson
161-163; and Smalley (next note), pp. 28-29. and G. Constable (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), pp. 173-200 and 537-568; A. J. Minnis,
2:1 My view of “ doctrinal” reading is based on: G. Pare, A. Brunet, and P. Tremblay, Medieval Theory of Authorship. Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later M iddle Ages (London,
Les ecoles et I ’enseignement: La renaissance du XIIe siecle (Montreal, 1933); P. Riche, Les ecoles 1984). For further bibliography, sec B. Munk Olsen, L ’etude des auteurs classiques aux X le
et I ’enseignement dans I ’occident chretien de la Jin du Ve siecle au milieu du X le siecle (Paris, 1979); et XIIe siecles. Catalogue des manuscrits classiques latins copies du IXe au XIIe siecle, 3 vols.
H.T. Marrou, History of Education in Antiquity (London, 1956, repr. 1982), esp. pp. (Paris, 1982-1987).
 20 IN TRO D U C TIO N T H E R E V IV A L O F P L A T O 21

glossator is a com piler, rep eatin g for g en eratio n after generation the m a­ au thorities in the light of first principles from w hich could be deduced a
terial he has inherited from his predecessors. body of certain truths. N aturally it tended to cut statem ents out of their
(3) Scholastic reading.2* Scholastic re a d in g first arises in the twelfth cen­ original context, and to subject them to w hat was know n as the pia inter-
tury, though it has its roots in tech n iq u es derived from the Corpus juris pretatio, that is, reading the au th o r as though he had said w hat the in ter­
civilis; it continues to be used in legal ed u catio n until the n in eteen th cen­ p reter assum es is the only rational thing for him to have said .2627It was
tury. It originated in the desire of ad v an ced students to com e m ore quick­ largely ahistorical and tended to be unconscious of an a u th o rity ’s point
ly to grips with the texts m ost relev an t to th eir professional interests, and of view as som ething distinct from abstract tru th .
though the technique was used in the theological, m edical, and arts (4) Imitative reading.21 In France, scholastic reading appears to have
faculties of the em erging universities, it was prim arily a legal, or perhaps driv en out the older doctrinal reading in all b u t a few provincial centers;
a legalistic, form of reading. T o satisfy student dem ands, m asters in Italy its triu m p h was even m ore com plete. In the late thirteenth cen­
reorganized the m aterials scattered th ro u g h o u t the various auctores into tu ry , how ever, gram m atical reading of the auctores was revived in N o rth ­
clearly organized textbooks on distinct subjects, such as G ra tia n ’s eastern Italy, this tim e, significantly, in the m ore secular environm ent of
Decretum on canon law, or the Sentences of P eter L om bard on theology.25 “ p re h u m a n ism ” . T ow ards the end of the fourteenth c en tu ry — with the
T hese texts were then system atically “ co v e re d ” at a regulated pace in a rise of the first hum anist schools, a m ore p ronounced aristocratic tone in
fixed curriculum . In the first, or ordinatio, lecture of the day the m aster lay education and culture, and m ore extrem e form s of classicism— this
read through the text and explained any am biguities; he provided doctrinal or gram m atical tradition was significantly altered as to its ob­
repeated sum m aries and analyses of the co n ten t. L ater he dealt w ith any ject. T h e older gram m atical tradition had been prim arily interested in
conflicts which seem ed to arise betw een the au th o rities— or betw een the im p artin g the doctrina of the authors. It expected that students would ac­
authorities and “ reaso n ” — in the form o f quaestiones, w here ap p aren t q u ire in some m easure, by osmosis as it w ere, the elegance of the ancient
contradictions were elim inated by refining distinctions and by a w riters, b u t it m ade no serious or system atic attem pts to eradicate non-
sophisticated use of logic. O th e r u n iv ersity exercises, the repetitiones and classical form s of speech; the conceptions of classicism and medievalism,
disputations, m irro red these techniques. indeed, did not exist for m edieval g ra m m a ria n s.28
T h e purpose of this kind o f read in g was not to provide the student with T h e hum anists, how ever, w ere after som ething fundam entally dif­
a broad education in a wide ran g e o f subjects, as was the case with doc­ ferent. T h ey w anted readers of the authors not only to acquire doctrina,
trinal reading. It had, ra th e r, two related purposes. First, it aim ed to im ­ b ut also to be able to im itate system atically the discourse of the best a n ­
press upon the stu d e n t’s m em ory the texts he w ould need for his cient w riters. As L eonardo B runi p ut it in his De studus et Uteris, the reader
professional w ork. Second, it ta u g h t him to argue for an answ er to any should acquire not only rerum scientia b u t also litterarum pentia, or
question he m ight be faced w ith by teaching him to m anipulate
26 For the pia interpretatio, see Chenu (note 22 above), p. 146; the procedure is
authorities according to the rules o f logic. R eading of this kind tended remarkably like what Richard Rorty describes as the “ rational reconstructions’’ used by
to approach the texts at the pro p o sitio n al level, for only at that level could modern philosophers to make conversational partners ol great dead philosophers; see his
“ The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres’’ in Philosophy in History, ed. R. Rorty
texts be incorporated into syllogism s. It was thus interested in auctoritates
and J. B. Schneevvind (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 49-56. According to Chenu, the
rath e r than auctores', it reg ard ed the various utterances of legitim ate scholastics did occasionally pay attention to the circumstantia litterarum and linguistic
change, but this usually occurred in argumentative contexts; there was no “ institutional
24 The best account of scholastic hermeneutics is M.-D. Chenu, Towards Understanding interest’’ in recovering the historical usage of an earlier period, such as humanist editors
St. Thomas, tr. A.-M. Landry and D. Hughes (Chicago, 1964), esp. chapters 2-5. For and teachers later developed.
the emergence of scholastic reading from earlier doctrinal reading, see M. Bellomo, Sag- 27 My impressions of the humanist approach to classical authors have been formed,
gio sulTuniversita nelTetd di diritto comune (Catania, 1979), p. 59f. The same kind of reading among other works, by R. Sabbadini, II metodo degli umanisti (Florence, 1922); E. Garin,
developed a century and a half earlier in the Islamic madreseh; see G. Makdisi, “ The L ’educazwne in Europa, 1400-1600, 2nd edn. (Bari, 1976); Grafton and Jardine (q.v.); A.
Scholastic Method in Medieval Education,’’ Speculum 49 (1974): 640-661. Buck and O. Herding, eds., Der Kommenlar in der Renaissance (Boppard, 1975); A. Graf­
25 The exceptions were in civil law, where the Corpus juris already provided an ad­ ton, “ Renaissance Readers and Ancient Texts,’’ R Q 38 (1985): 615-649; S. Rizzo, II
mirable text-book (it was in fact probably the model for Gratian and Peter Lombard), lessico filologico degli umanisti, Sussidi eruditi, 26 (Rome, 1973); L. D. Reynolds and N.
and in philosophy, where university arts faculties relied on the works of Aristotle, which G. Wilson, Copisti efilologi, 2nd edn. enlarged and revised, Medioevo e umanesimo, 7
had already been cast into text-book form; for other subjects such as rhetoric or grammar (Padua, 1974).
or the quadrivial subjects there were other compilations, some late ancient, some 2H E. R. Curtius, European Literature and the Latin M iddle Ages, tr. W. R. Trask
medieval. (Princeton, 1953), p. 247f.
 22 IN T R O D U C TIO N T H E REV IV A L O F PL A T O 23

eloquence; indeed, the form er was to be rigidly su b o rdinated to the lat­ reducing their linguistic usage to accurate' lexica and handbooks ot ac­
te r.29 In essence, the hum anists aim ed to revive the “ ethical criticism ’’ cidence, syntax, orthography, prosody, and prose rh ythm . W ith the help
of an tiq u ity , descended from Isocrates, C icero and Q u in tilia n .30 Ethical of these handbooks, a student could be drilled into w riting a convincing
criticism — w hat I have here called “ im itative re a d in g ’’— sought to replica of classical discourse. O nly then would he tu rn to the traditional
tran sm it the accepted ethos o r values o f the educated classes in society by doctrinal read in g — but with a difference. N ot only w ould the student be
selecting a canon of texts thought to em body those values and expected to w ork laboriously through a text in the traditional m anner; he
establishing them as the loci of im itation. Im itation in this sense could would also be obliged to com pile com m onplace books w ith the best senten-
take a n u m b er of form s. G ood or bad actions in the text, exempla, the tiae of the authors he read arranged u nder various heads, so as m ore easi­
ed u cato r m ight hold up for praise o r blam e; his hope was that his student ly to be introduced into the stu d e n t’s own com positions.32 It appears that
w ould be stim ulated to good acts or d eterred from bad ones by the the greater p art of hum anistic reading was ju st such a hybrid of doctrinal
au th o rity and eloquence of the auctor and the tradition of noble behavior and im itative reading.
he represented, as well as by the fam e o r infam y which was shown to ac­ (5) Allegorism , 33 T h ere is some am biguity in identifying allegory as a
crue to his own m oral choices. In the te a c h e r’s m ind m oreover the im ita­ distinct style of reading, for allegory was at once a style ot reading unto
tion of noble behavior was inseparable from the im itation of noble itself and at the sam e tim e a special technique in the arm ory of doctrinal
speech, a connection which justified him for his preoccupation with reading. T h e distinction goes back to an tiquity. In ancient times an
g ram m a r and style. H e und ersto o d th at n o th in g could im p art a habitual ethical critic such as A ristotle (in the Rhetoric), D em etrius, or D ionysius
cast of m ind to a student m ore effectively th an to force him to rem ake of H alicarnassus m ight discuss an obviously intentional passage of
his linguistic universe on a (p resum ably) ideal plan. Le style c ’est Vhomme allegory as an extended poetical trope closely associated with m etaphor;
meme. A certain style o r discourse encoded w ithin itself a structure of although he m ight explain the allegory, his p rim ary interest in doing so
values and beliefs which unconsciously m olded behavior and directed the was to perm it the reader to im itate the m oral lessons and poetical tech­
process of socialization in a p red eterm in ed direction. If educators like niques it exhibited. T his sam e piecem eal approach to allegory was
G u a rin o and V itto rin o da Feltre w ould not have described w hat they em ployed by the m ajority of medieval Biblical exegetes and glossators of
w ere doing in q uite this w ay, on a certain level they w ere perfectly aw are classical texts. But “ figure allegory’’ of this kind was fundam entally dif­
of th eir m ethod, and sufficiently ju stified in their belief in its effec­ ferent from the Allegorese or allegorism practiced by som e Sophists, the
tiveness. Stoics, Philo of A lexandria, O rigen, and later the N eoplatonists. T he
T o achieve this end of rem ak in g the linguistic universe of high culture, allegorist was typically a m em ber of a philosophical or religious sect with
the h um anists developed, alongside the trad itional doctrinal reading a sacred text to in terpret. O n a conscious level, he wished to use the
0historice), a new kind of read in g (methodice) whose object was to enable the technique to m ake his text into the lowest ru n g on a ladder of theological
stu d en t to reproduce the style of the best a u th o rs.31 T o this end the stu­ speculation. Less consciously, or unconsciously, allegory was for him a
den t (or m ore often his teacher) read the classic texts w ith a view to tool to overcom e the cultural and historical distance which separated the
sect he served from the sacred w riter. T he allegorist assum ed that the en ­
29 Schriften, p. 11. The subordination of learning to eloquence is shown by the advice tire text, not ju st single passages, had been intentionally allegorized by
to study only classical authors (scriptores veteres) and the argument that litterarum peritia was the a u th o r in o rd er to teach the illuminati sublim e theological truths. For
useful because it gives one’s style distinction. For a striking example of the shift from doc­ the N eoplatonist H erm ias, for instance, the whole of the Phaedrus, not
trinal to imitative reading between the time of Salutati and Tortelli, see V. Brown and
C. Kallendorf. “Two Humanistic Annotators of Virgil: Coluccio Salutati and Giovanni ju st the m yth of the charioteer, was a g ran d allegory on the them e of
Tortelli” , in Supplementum Festivum, pp. 65-148. B eauty, b u t this was a “ secret” that only he who had know n true Beauty
10 Marrou (note 21, above), pp. 791. and 217f.; Coulter (q. v.), chapter 1. I prefer the
term ‘‘imitative reading” to ‘‘ethical criticism” since the term criticism nowadays im­ 32 Booksellers and copyists frequently catered to the copybook technique by supplying
plies a conscious theory, whereas with the exception of Quintilian and a few others most the texts they produced with notabilia (often rubricated) written into the margins; the
of those practicing such reading were simply exercizing a traditional procedure. same can often be found in early printed copies of classical and Christian authors in the
" The best account ol the actual practice of a humanist school is given in Grafton and form of running titles and summaries of the contents.
Jardine (q.v.), chapter 1. The techniques of reading methodice may well have been brought 13 See Coulter (q.v.), chapter 1; M. von Albrecht, “‘Allegorie” , in Lexikon der Allen
to the West by Manuel Chrvsoloras, who had acquired in Constantinople a training in Welt (Zurich, 1965), pp. 121-124; A. Bielmeier, Die neuplatonische Phaidrosinterpretation,
Atticist imitation. Rhetorische Studien, 16 (Paderborn, 1930).
 24 IN TRO D U C TIO N T H E R E V IV A L O F P L A T O 25

could be expected to grasp. T his assum ption led the allegorist into a parallels. It is essentially a com parative technique, discrim inating am ong
teleological analysis of literary detail, relating each elem ent to a single usages in different historical periods, attem pting to reconstruct a true ac­
deeper truth (the skopos in N eoplatonic language); he was guided in this count of the past from v arian t historical accounts; its natu ral genre is the
apriori analysis by the doctrines of the sect he served. A llegorism , short study or m onograph, such as P oliziano’s Centuriae or B ude’s De
naturally enough, is then characterized by a tendency to subvert the tex­ nummis. In its later developm ent it seeks to w ork out herm eneutical rules
tual surface and to intro d u ce form s of secondary elaboration into its to distinguish genuine w orks from forgeries and to find the historical
herm eneutical m e th o d .34 T h e re are to m y know ledge no pure exam ples tru th b eneath the varying accounts of sources. W hen fully developed and
of allegorism in the fifteenth cen tu ry , but some N eoplatonic exegetes rigorously applied, as in the nineteenth century, it n aturally produces an
seem to have been strongly influenced by this kind of re a d in g .35 historicist outlook; in the fifteenth century, how ever, historicism of this
(6) Critical reading. T h e re are ru d im e n ta ry forms of historical and kind was hardly possible, given the overw helm ing force of tradition and
philological criticism already in a n tiq u ity and the M iddle Ages, and a the private and diffuse character of scholarly activity. At m ost, as we shall
rath er m ore developed form am o n g the fifteenth cen tu ry hum anists. see, critical reading was capable of producing a tension betw een the
Some form of criticism was indeed b o und to em erge from the desire of educative and classicizing goals of hum anistic culture.
early hum anists to revive the culture of an tiq u ity in their own tim e, and (7) Aesthetic reading. T his kind of reading can hardly be said to exist at
there are some significant exam ples of such criticism already in the all in the fifteenth century, although there are some fissures which p o r­
w ritings of S alutati and B runi. C riticism is also im plied in the efforts of tend its em ergence in the sixteenth century. T h e form of reading, how­
im itative readers to avoid linguistic an a c h ro n ism — w hat they w ould have ever, is very old, going back to A ristotle’s Poetics and represented in the
called “ b a rb a rism ” . But critical read in g only comes truly into its own m odern world by w hat are called “ genre critics” .37 T h e genre critic,
with the increasing professionalization of the hum anities in the later fif­ typically a m an of letters w riting for an upperclass reading public, makes
teenth c e n tu ry .36 C ritical read in g tends to look on texts as fontes rath er a strong separation betw een the aesthetic and the m oral purposes of
than auctontates. It is sensitive to an ach ro n ism and therefore aw are that reading literature. H e asserts that the form er purpose is sufficient reason
the original intention of the au th o r cannot sim ply be in tuited but needs for engaging in reading, and claims that any “ im m o rality ” depicted in
rath er to be reconstructed by careful observation of contexts and literatu re has a negligible m oral effect on the reader. W hereas the reader
in the first five of our form s of reading believes that the a u th o r’s prim ary
34 The ailegorist’s use of allegory is distinguished from that of the doctrinal reader bv desire was to teach, and that the literary pleasure he provides for the
the latter's tendency to confine allegorical readings to particular passages, typically ones
that contrast with contemporary mores. While the allegorist received his hermeneutical read er is subordinate to that e n d ,38 the aesthetic read er em phasizes above
key from a dogmatic theology or some other set of doctrines inherited from a sectarian all the w riter’s purpose to give literary pleasure through beauty, and
tradition, the doctrinal critic was able to identify passages of allegory by his assumption judges a literary artifact on the basis of its success in producing a
that the author intended to teach the values of contemporary society, a reasonable
assumption where the text belonged to a canon in which his class had "always” been beautiful effect. Som etim es this is justified m orally by the claim that
educated. For the use of allegory in medieval biblical commentaries, see see the works beauty is ennobling to the character. T he aesthetic reader has a strong
ot Smallev and Minnis cited in note 21 and H. de Lubac, Exegese medievale. 4 vols., (Paris, sense of the literary w ork as an object, and tries to relate its parts to the
1959-64).'
35 The two best examples known to the present writer are Cristoforo Landino and artistic effect of the whole. H e also has a strong sense of the au thor as
Marsilio Ficino. In the latter case, the use of allegorism is probably the direct influence a literary personality. H e tends to read the bare text w ithout notes at the
of later Neoplatonic exegesis (see below, p. 344f.); in Landino’s case, it may be a matter pace of oral delivery and relies on his native virtu and his classical educa­
ol parallel development. For Landino's shift to a thorough-going style of allegory, see M.
Murrin, The Allegorical Epic: Essays in Its Rise and Decline (Chicago, 1980). tion to u n d erstan d it. R eady und erstan d in g is also enhanced by the fact
,h For the early history of philological criticism see A. Grafton, Joseph Scahger: A Study that the aesthetic reader prizes clarity above all other literary virtues in
in the History oj Classical Scholarship (Oxford, 1983). For the development of historical and
the authors he reads and patronizes.
source criticism, see J. Franklin, Jean Bodin and the Sixteenth-Century Revolution in the
Methodology of Law and History (New York, 1963); D. R. Kelley, Foundations of Modern
Historical Scholarship (New York, 1970); and P. Burke. The Renaissance Sense of the Past ( Ne w 37 Northrop Frye, The Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton, 1957).
5mk. 1970). These works have more recently been criticised for exaggerating the 38 The typical humanist claim (echoed from Horace) is that pleasure improves the
humanist contribution; see B. Guenee, Histoire et culture histonque dans TOccident medieval usefulness of literature by making ethical lessons more attractive to readers who might
(I ails. 1980); and A. Grafton, '‘Invention of Tradition and Traditions ot Invention in not otherwise be willing to listen. Judson Allen (note 23, above) is particularly il­
Renaissance humpe: The Strange Case ot Annius ol Viterbo,” (forthcoming). luminating on differences between modern aesthetic reading and medieval reading.
26 IN TRO D U C TIO N

W e have, th en , five developed form s and two em erging form s of

reading in use in the cen tu ry of the Platonic revival. T h o u g h each has
its base in a different intellectual co m m u n ity or teaching trad itio n , m ost
R enaissance readers were probably capable of em ploying several styles
of reading, especially in the case of those for w hom hu m an istic schooling
was propaedeutic to a professionalized university education. T h e style of
reading em ployed for a given text was also, naturally, d ep en d en t to some
extent on the genre to w hich th at text was perceived to belong. T h u s the
general belief (draw n from C icero, Q u in tilia n and A ristotle) th at P la to ’s
style was a m ixture of prose an d poetry had a significant effect on the
type of reading applied to his dialogues, as we shall see in the following
P art.
PA RT I

FLO REN CE

Quamquam si plane sic uerterem Platonem aut

Aristotelem ut uerterunt nostri poetae fabulas,
male credo mererer de meis ciuibus si ad eorum
cognitionem diuina ilia ingenia transferrem.

—Cicero, Fin. 1.3.7

1. Plato and the Defense of the Humanities
In the year 1397, a young law student in Florence nam ed Leonardo
B runi had an anxious decision to make about his future. H e could con­
tinue with his legal studies and thus assure him self of a position in a
respected and lucrative profession. O r he could in terru p t his schooling
for a less practical but m ore fascinating study: lessons in G reek language
and literatu re with a B yzantine aristocrat, M anuel C hrysoloras, who had
recently been invited by the C om m une to lecture at its university. But
the story is best told in his own autobiography, w ritten some forty years
later:
At this time I was studying the Civil Law, though I was not an ignoramus
in other subjects. For it was my nature to feel a burning passion for studies,
and I had devoted no little effort to dialectic and rhetoric. Thus I was ac­
tually of two minds when Chrysoloras arrived, as I thought it shameful to
abandon the study of the law, and at the same time almost criminal to miss
such an opportunity to learn Greek. So, in a youthful spirit, I would often
ask myself, “ When you have a chance to see and converse with Homer and
Plato and Demosthenes and the other poets and philosophers and orators
about whom such wonderful things are said, and to acquire the wonderful
education that comes with their study, will you leave yourself in the lurch
and deprive yourself of it? Will you pass up this God-given opportunity?
For seven hundred years now, no one in Italy has been able to read Greek,
and yet we admit that it is from the Greeks that we get all our systems of
knowledge. What a contribution to your knowledge, then, and what an op­
portunity to establish your reputation, and what an abundance of pleasure
will the knowledge of this language bring you! There are plenty of teachers
of the Civil Law, so you will always be able to study that, but this is the
one and only teacher of Greek; if he should disappear, there would then be
nobody from whom you could learn.’’
Overcome by such arguments, I betook myself to Chrysoloras, with such
an ardor to study that what I learned in my waking hours during the day,
I would be working over at night even in my sleep.1
It was in this fashion that the m ost im p o rtan t tran slato r of Plato in the
early fifteenth century took his first steps in the G reek lan g u ag e.2 At the
end of the fourteenth century, to be sure, the study of G reek was by no

1 Translated by G. Griffiths in The Humanism of Leonardo Bruni, pp. 23-24, from

Bruni’s Commentarius rerum suo tempore gestarum, ed. Di Pierro, RIS, n.s., 19.3 (Bologna,
1926), pp. 341-342. On the effects of Chrysoloras’ stay in Florence more generally see
R. Weiss, “ Gli inizi dello studio del greco a Firenze,” in Medieval and Humanist Greek:
Collected Essays (Padua, 1977), pp. 227-254.
2 See my bibliography in The Humanism of Leonardo Brum, pp. 393-409, for secondary
literature on Bruni.
30 PART I FLORENCE 31

means as impractical as it is thought to be today. T h o u g h the rewards ity. A third m ajor change was a new confidence that the culture of anti­
of law were larger and m ore certain, the value of classical studies was quity could indeed be revived; that the skills and knowledge could be
coming to be more widely recognized am ong the professional rhetori­ developed to recover the excellencies of ancient literature, art, architec­
cians, or dictatores, of the period, thanks to the example of m en like ture, and military virtue. In the literary sphere the new conFidence is best
B ru n i’s teacher Coluccio Salutati and his friend Pier Paolo V ergerio, and glimpsed in B ru n i’s own Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum (ca. 1405), where Nic­
thanks to the pervasive influence of Cicero. Cicero in his De oratore had colo Niccoli’s despair at the loss of pagan literature— an attitude typical
taught that true eloquence could only be achieved by the m a n who had of T re c e n to Figures such as Petrarch— is overcome by pride in the ac­
acquired a broad background in philosophy and history a nd all the arts complishments of the new age. And am ong the greatest achievements of
and sciences. He had also taught that those arts and sciences had come the day, in the opinion of most humanists, was the revival of Greek
originally from Greece, and that the m a n who wanted the broad culture studies am o n g native Italian literary men.
that led to eloquence must go back to the Greek sources of all culture. M oving in circles such as these the young Bruni would then see his
It was, indeed, in the hope of reviving true learning and eloquence that study of G reek not merely as a vocational tool, but as a gentlemanly ac­
Salutati had encouraged the C o m m u n e of Florence to invite Chrysoloras quire m e nt which could be used to create anew the ideal culture of Cicero­
to its university. So Bruni, in studying with Chrysoloras, was preparing nian R om e. Indeed, though Bruni was obliged by his circumstances to
himself for a career as one of the new classicizing dictatores, or hum anists, seek em ploym ent as a papal secretary, he envied the life of the gentleman
who were beginning to dom inate the chanceries of Italy. A knowledge of scholar led by Petrarch and his epigones, and sought throughout his early
Greek would help “ establish his r e p u ta tio n ’’ for learning and eloquence; career in the papal curia (1405-1414) the means to return to Florence and
by following in the footsteps of Salutati, by broadening his knowledge of enjoy the otium litteratum he had had during his student years as a disciple
classical culture— what Salutati had na m e d “ the h u m a n itie s” (studia of Salutati and as a friend and protege of Niccoli.
humanitatis)— Bruni would be helping to ensure his success as a profes­ Bruni was later inclined to present his student days as a scholarly idyll,
sional humanist. but in fact the earliest years of the Fifteenth century were years of con­
But B ru n i’s interest in G reek was far from being purely vocational. troversy for the followers of Salutati and Niccoli. T h e emergence of the
Since his arrival in Florence in the 1390s, he had m oved in another, new classicism and the new aristocratic education were bound to increase
closely related, milieu which also set a high value on classical studies. tensions wi .n representatives of the more traditional clerical and ver­
This was the milieu of the Florentine gentlemen scholar, which included nacular cultures of the late Middle Ages. In Florence, the tensions were
Figures such as Niccolo Niccoli, Palla Strozzi, R oberto Rossi, and A n ­ particularly evident. T h e noisiest opposition came from m em bers of the
tonio Corbinelli. For more than a century, m en such as these, and religious orders who regarded the new classical education as a revival of
similar Figures in other Italian towns, had formed an audience for the paganism . Best known is the case of the D om inican Giovanni Dominici,
poets and dictatores who were producing a new Latin and Italian a disciple of St. C atherine of Siena, who saw the classical enthusiasms of
literature. But in B ru n i’s day, several im portant changes were taking the Salutati circle in an apocalyptic light, as a sign of the last times when
place in the literary circles of Florence and other Italian cities. In the First the pagan gods would again come to tem pt the faithful of Christ.
place, the view was em erging that an education in the Latin and Greek T h r o u g h books, letters, and in ringing sermons delivered in Santa M aria
classics, and an ability to write and speak in good classical Latin, were del Fiore Dominici spread to others his fear that youths with insufFicient
the distinguishing marks of an aristocrat. T his m eant a breakdow n of the religious formation would Find themselves bewitched by the charms of
wall that had usually separated the a m a te u r from the clerk in the high pagan verse.3*Salutati and Bruni defended classical studies in a num ber
middle ages, namely, the knowledge of Latin. Connected with this view
of education, in the second place, was a new, more uncom prom ising 3 Dominici (Lucula noctis, ed. Coulon, p. 176) accuses “ the followers of Cicero” of
being secret pagans and points out that the poets were damned (p. 408). For the literature
classicism— indeed, a virtual apotheosis of all things classical. While on Dominici see Witt, Salutati, p. 410, note 45; for the controversy over the reading ol
literary clerks in the M iddle Ages had always respected and imitated, pagan poets more generally, which goes back to the time of Mussato, one may consult
albeit unsystematically, the Latin classics, now the classical world was to G. Ronconi, Le ortgini delle dispute umamstiche sulla poesia (Rome, 1976). Bruni himsell
refers to “ the idea the vulgar have that men dedicated to literature neither believe in nor
be the exclusive cynosure of aristocratic taste, and later creations of E u r o ­ fear God” in Ep. IV .22 (V.4), where he confides to Poggio his fear that Niccoli’s im­
pean civilization were to be disdained as the products of medieval b a r b a r ­ moral behavior will encourage the stereotype.
 32 PART I FLORENCE 33

of letters, treatises, and translations, but the controversy refused to die; creating a high culture (those words were not of course used) not accessi­
Savonarola, at the other end of the century, was still able to exploit the ble to the average Florentine without the wealth to pursue a classical
passions aroused by religious hostility to the study of pagan literature.4 education. T h e y were also accused of a certain exhibitionism — the group
A second source of controversy for the Salutati group arose from the often m et u n d e r the “ tettoia dei P isani” in the Piazza della Signoria— in
recent invasion of Florence’s stadium, or university, by “ British b a r ­ p a ra d in g their learning before the ignorant in public. T h o u g h there were
b a ria n s’’— that is, students of late medieval scholastic logic and natural others, the most famous critic of the Salutati group in this respect was
philosophy. T hese subjects had achieved a certain popularity in the C ino Rinuccini, whose oft-quoted words m ay be repeated again with
university and in the conventual schools of the religious orders. But to profit:
the humanists of S alutati’s circle they were the symbol of everything that [The Niccoli group is] a chattering flock who, in order to appear highly
was wrong with contem porary culture. Echoing P e tra rc h ’s attack on the literate to the crowd, proclaim in the square how many diphthongs the
“ Averroists’’ of his day, Bruni and the rest ridiculed the inelegant jargon ancients had and why only two are known today; which grammar is better,
imported from Britain, the “ e m p ty ” disputations on speculative g r a m ­ that of the time of the comedian Terence or that of the heroic Virgil,
m a r and the "u sele ss” infatuation with natural philosophy— “ aureoles corrected; how many feet the ancients used in versifying and why nowadays
we use only the anapaest of four unaccented syllables. ... They say logic is
and w hirlw inds” , in B ru n i’s c ontem ptuous dismissal.5 T h e y saw the a sophistical science which is very long and not very useful and therefore
“ British” interest in the formal aspects of reasoning as excessive, and as they do not care to know whether the term is understood by its signification
leading to a neglect of “ true d isp u ta tio n ” , by which they m eant an or by its species or by its name. ... Nor do they care what a contradiction
elevated discussion of moral or literary topics in the m a n n e r of Cicero. is or a demonstrative syllogism, or about the other parts of logic. ... They
say poetic stories are fairy tales tor women and children and that the sweet
B ru n i’s Dialogi (modelled on the De oratore of Cicero) were intended at
recounter of these, Giovanni Boccaccio, did not know grammar—which I
least in part as a traditionalist counterblast to the flashy sophismata of the do not think is true. They make fun of the works of the poet laureate
schools.6 Petrarch, saying that his De viris illustnbus is just a Lenten scrapbook —
A third source of tension for the Salutati group arose from the strong They make great debates in front of the populace in the square about
sense of com m unal pride felt by Florentines for their native literary tra d i­ whether Homer or Virgil was the greater poet. And then to show the mob
how very well educated they are they say that the most famous and honored
tion. Elevating the classical above all other literatures implied a
Dante was only a shoemaker’s poet.* 73*
degrading of the vernacular tradition, even, in Niccoli’s case, of “ the
three crowns of Florence” , D ante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio. T h e tension T his is of course caricature, and not all of the young classicists held views
was heightened further by the growing political and class differences of so extreme. Bruni, for instance, had the exaggerated patriotism of the
the period. In B ru n i’s Dialogi, Niccoli poured contem pt on the beloved im m igrant, and in any case could not afford to take such unpopular
D ante, dismissing him as a poet suitable only for “ wool workers, bakers, views, hoping as he did in his early period to succeed Salutati as
and the like” . In short, the Salutati group was accused of snobbery, of chancellor of Florence. His position, disguised in the Dialogi but more ex­
plicit in his later Lives of Dante and Petrarch, was that the classical authors
had indeed been suprem e, but that the great Florentine writers of the
4 For Salutati’s role in the various controversies about the reading of the pagan poets,
see Witt, Salutati, pp. 405-413. Bruni’s translation of St. Basil’s De legendis libns gentilium, T re c e n to also had “ their proper esteem and m e r it” . It is but one in­
one ot the most popular books of the century, was originally intended as a defense of the stance of B r u n i’s general disposition to reconcile tensions through com­
studia humamtatis against religious philistinism, as is evident from the preface in Schnften, promise and conciliation.
pp. 99-100.
3 See his later Isagogicon moralis disciplinae in Schnften, pp. 20-41 at 21 (translated in The
Humanism of Leonardo Brum, pp. 267-282), which takes up themes found in Salutati’s let­
ters. ‘Aureoles and whirlwinds” is a reference to topics treated in Aristotle’s Meteonca.
" See “ La cultura fiorentina nella seconda meta del Trecento e i ‘barbari britanni’,”
in Garin (1969), pp. 139-177; N. Gilbert, “ The Early Italian Humanists and Disputa­
tion,” in Renaissance Studies in Honor oj Hans Baron, ed. A. Molho and J. A. Tedeschi 7 From Cino Rinuccini’s Invective against Certain Calumniators o f Dante, Petrarch and Boc­
(Dekalb, Illinois, 1971), pp. 201-226; G. Federici Vescovini, Astrologia e scienza. La cnsi caccio (before 1405) quoted from Holmes, Florentine Enlightenment, pp. 1-2. For further ex­
/tell arislotehsmo sul cadere del Trecento e Biagio Pelacam da Parma (Florence. 1979); C. Vasoli, amples of contemporary hostility to the new classicism, see Baron (1966). pp. 273-338;
“ Intorno al Petrarca ed ai logici moderni,” in Miscellanea medievalia: Antiqui und Moderni, and A. Lanza, Polemuhe e berte letterane nella Firenze del pnmo Quattrocento (Rome, 1971), esp.
ed. A. Zimmermann, vol. 9 (Berlin, 1974), pp. 142-154. pp. 19-100; Cino’s Invettiva is edited ibid., pp. 261-267.
34 PART I FLORENCE 35

* * But the h um anist circle was doing more th a n simply echoing Petrarch.
Cicero and other ancient writers had led them to take a view of Plato—
Given the am biguous relationship, discussed in the Introduction, be­ and P la to ’s Socrates— which seemed to make the G reek thinkers p a r­
tween the Platonic corpus and early Renaissance h u m a n ism , it is almost tisans of their own cultural prejudices. Salutati, for instance, saw his own
inevitable that the nam e of Plato should become a ba ttle-standard in the informal practice of disputation as a re-evocation of the Socratic method
cultural warfare of the period. For the Salutati and Niccoli circles, the depicted in P la to ’s dialogues, and likened his own struggle against
temptation to use his authority against their enemies m ust have been ir­ “ British logic’’ to Socrates’ struggle against the Sophists.10 H a tin g the
resistible. Petrarch had already shown the way in his De sui ipsius et obscure and ugly language of the scholastics, Salutati felt his prejudices
multorum ignorantia. T h e p o e t’s scholastic enemies were pro u d of their to be vindicated by the ancient reports that Plato, the greatest of the old
hero, Aristotle, but this, according to Petrarch, only showed their ig­ philosophers, had also been am ong the most elegant of writers, a man
norance. T he ancients had clearly thought Plato the greater philosopher, whom even Cicero had not blushed to im itate.11* T h e Florentine
but aside from the Timaeus, the scholastics were almost completely ig­ chancellor’s conviction of the uselessness and epistemic insecurity of
norant of his works, while every known work of Aristotle was scholastic natural philosophy also gave him a sense of kinship with
dismembered daily in the schools. Petrarch had had to point to his Greek Socrates when he read the stories in Cicero and Augustine of how
manuscript of Plato, containing sixteen dialogues, to prove his conten­ Socrates had a b a n d o n e d the natural science of the Presocratics in despair
tion that there were indeed other works of Plato which m erited attention. at the difficulty of attaining truth in them, and had betaken himself, “ at­
Moreover, the intense study of Aristotle had led m a n y to entertain tracted by its utility’’, to the science of ethics. T h e story became a
doubts about Christianity, even to apostasize, and this tended to en­ favorite one with Salutati:
danger the position of secular studies a m ong philistine critics. W ith Plato
At that point, Greece having been for some time aboil with the study of
on the other hand there was the hope that he would reinforce rather than
physical science and all the sophists—and at length even the
weaken faith. Augustine, in a famous passage of the City of God ( V I I I .9), philosophers—devoting themselves generally to the principles of natural
had said that Plato and the platomci were of all pagan philosophers the philosophy, Socrates took up a new kind of research, an inquiry into the
closest to Christianity. If this were so, surely the best chance of in­ true and moral philosophy, which is called “ wisdom’’. First, having aban­
tegrating pagan wisdom into Christian culture lay with Plato, not doned natural science in despair, as some say, of attaining truth about
natural objects, or rather being attracted by the usefulness for good conduct
Aristotle.8
In the Salutati and Niccoli circle, the belief that Plato was superior to
latini del Quattrocento, ed. Garin, [Milan, 1952], p. 56); there Bruni, speaking through Nic-
Aristotle had become an accepted dogma, to the point where it was taken coli’s mouth, says his quarrel is not with Aristotle himself, but with the ipsedixitism of
by outsiders as a nother m ark of their snobbery and affectation. T o listen his modern followers.
to Cino Rinuccini again: 10 See Novati, 3:545: “ Nescio de aiiis; de me vero tarn volo quam possum libere con-
fiteri longe plura me didicisse rogatum quam studio vel doctrina: nichil enim tarn
They say that Plato is a greater philosopher than Aristotle, quoting Saint vehementer animum perficit quam interrogationibus respondere ... unde Socratico more
Augustine’s statement that Aristotle was the prince of philosophers save for philosophorum princeps divinissimus Plato disputatores interrogando suos respondendi
Plato. They do not say that St. Augustine put him first because his view necessitate sensim in occulte inconcesseque prius veritatis lumen et noticiam inducebat.”
See also Novati, 3:533. On the analogy between the scholastics and the ancient sophists,
of the soul was more in conformity with the Catholic faith, while in natural
see B. L. Ullman, The Humanism of Coluccio Salutati, Medioevo e umanesimo, no. 4
things which require demonstration and proofs Aristotle is the master of (Padua, 1963), p. 85. This odd comparison (which the scholastics in Florence might with
those who know.9 greater justice have turned against Salutati) was perhaps given a greater appearance of
plausibility bv the scholastic habit of calling their dialectical exercises “ sophismata” .
11 See Salutati, De labonbus Herculis, ed. B. L. Ullman (Zurich, 1951), p. 557: “ Ut vult
8 De sui ipsius ignorantia et multorum aliorum, in Opera (Basel, 1554), pp. 1035-1059: 1050. Plato, quern maxime secuti sunt optimi poetarum qui latine scripserunt, credo Grecos
Salutati had already in 1374 praised Plato’s doctrine of the soul (which he knew indirectly etiam qui post ilium claruerunt idem fecisse (super omnes quidem philosophos, ut volunt,
through Augustine and the so-called Liber Alcidi) as more consonant with Christianity eminet, quoniam divina nimis et singulari cum sapientia turn eloquentia floruit).” The
than the doctrines of the Epicureans or Aristotelians; see Garin (1979), pp. 95-99. The passage is based on Augustine, Civ. Dei XIII. 19 (cf. Myth. Vat. III. 6.8; 13). For Cicero’s
Liber Alcidi, an anonymous product of twelfth-century Platonism, has now been edited imitation of Plato, see P. Boyance, “ Le platonisme a Rome: Platon et Ciceron,” in
by P. Lucentini (Naples, 1984). Etudes sur I’humanisme ciceronien, Collection Latomus no. 121 (Brussels, 1970); G. Zoll,
'' Loc. cit. Cino seems to be suggesting that they failed to give Aristotle his due, which Cicero Platonis Aemulus: Untersuchungen ueber die Form von Ciceros Dialogen, diss. Freiburg i.
is not the case for Bruni, even in his early period, as one may see in the Dialogi ( Prosaton B. (Zurich, 1962); and the studies cited in note 31.
36 PART I FLORENCE 37

and by the excellence of the science called “ ethics” , or (more credibly) by- realizing quite what they were doing, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Salutati and
reason of both [the former’s] difficulty and [the latter’s] utility, he betook others resuscitated the interpretation of polytheistic m yth and cult that
himself to ethics and began to dispute about the powers and faculties of the had been used by the more philosophical pagans themselves as a defense
soul, the habit of the virtues, and the end or ends of human acts. He set
against C hristian apologists. In the ancient world, C hristian bishops and
out a new teaching on ends and means, the nature of honor, the beauty of
good conduct and of orderly living. Nor did he only inquire what was fitting controversialists had attacked the pagan poets for the gross and unedify­
for individuals, the part of philosophy they call the “ monastic” , but he in­ ing anthropom orphism of polytheistic m yth. E ducated pagans had
vestigated with marvelous reasonings how the family should be managed, replied that such an unde rsta n d in g of polytheism was superficial; that,
or "'economics” , and how the state should be ordained, or “ politics.” Plato through allegory, the discerning reader could detect u n d e r the skin of
reports that the wonderful new science spread through all Greece, so that
poetic polytheism a more theologically sophisticated m onotheism closely
(as Cicero tells us) no one dared to call himself a philosopher without [pro­
viding himself with] the precepts of the duties. The rest were [afterwards] related to Platonic metaphysics.
called natural scientists rather than philosophers.12 A thousand years later, Petrarch was to claim, in a similar fashion,
that the pagan poets had really been theologians and monotheists, and
Plato and P la to ’s Socrates, then, helped to vindicate the early had disguised their true beliefs from the ignorant vulgar under sym ­
hum anists’ interest in eloquence, moral philosophy, and in elevated but
bolical myths. Unconsciously turning P lato’s a rg u m e n t in the Republic on
informal disputation. But far the most im portant function Plato discharg­
its head, he argued that the very anthropom orphic absurdity of pagan
ed for them — a function which explains m uch about the Platonic revival
m yth proved that the ancient poets must have believed in something
in the fifteenth c e n tu ry — was his role in justifying the use of pagan poetry
more sublime. A subtle interpreter who looked beneath the bright surface
in lay education. In the fourteenth century, thanks largely to the
of ancient poetry would find hidden there a sacred wisdom which might
popularity of D ante and Petrarch, the prestige of poetry in the Italian
still bear sound fruit in a Christian culture. Boccaccio (following
city-states had been greatly enhanced. T h e classical poets had shared in
Augustine) argued that by using careful allegorical methods, the inter­
the revival, and the traditional belief in the virtue and wisdom of the old
preter could show that the multiple gods of pagan poetry were in fact to
vales had found new advocates outside the clerical caste of the high M id ­
be interpreted as functions or m embers of a single divinity. T he
dle Ages. N aturally, the popularity am o n g lay persons of pa g a n poetry,
monotheistic theology such an interpreter would uncover in his exegesis
“ the literature of the d a m n e d ” , had worried theological conservatives,
would be largely identical with the philosophy of Plato. A nd Augustine
and became an especial target for m em bers of the preaching orders. In
himself was authority for the nearness of Platonism to Christian
response to their criticism, the early hum anists had been obliged to take
theology.13 T h u s Plato was already for the early hum anists what he was
a high line as regards the wisdom of the old poets. W ithout, perhaps,
to become with increasing conviction in the course of the fifteenth cen­
tury: a link between paganism and Christianity, an instrum ent for recon­
12 Novati, 3:587 [25 April 1405, to Ser Guido Manfredi da Pietrasanta]: "'Socrates
enim, fervente iam tunc Grecia physice studiis cunctisque sophis tandemque philosophis ciling the pagan religion of the adored classical writers with the
circa rerum naturam et principia communiter occupatis, novum speculandi genus et vere Christianity of their hum a n ist admirers.
moralisque philosophic considerationem, que sapientia dicitur, secutus est; primusque T his tendency of hum anist religious thought, which Charles T rinkaus
dimissis phvsicis dcsperatione, sicut quidam aiunt. veritatis de naturalibus inveniende vel
potius utilitate morum et scientie. quam ethicam vocant, bonitate pellectus sive, quod has well called the “ naturalization of p a g a n ism ” a nd the “ universaliza­
credibilius est, utraque difficultatis et utilitatis ratione, se convertit ad ethica cepitque de
viribus anime, de potentiis eius, de virtutum habitu et actuum humanorum fine sive
tinibus disputare, de objectis et mediis honestique natura et morum pulcritudine ratione- 13 For the “ poetic theology” of the Trecento humanists, see Trinkaus, Image and
que r<?rum agibilium ordinare novam doctrinam: nec solum quid singulos deceat in- Likeness, 2: 684-718; and R. G. Witt, “ Coluccio Salutati and the Concept of the Poeta
quirere, quam philosophic partem monasticam appellavere, sed quid familiam dirigat, Theologus in the Fourteenth Century,” R Q 30 (1977): 538-546. For the ancient pagans
quam economicam dicunt, quidque respublicas sanciat, quam politicam nominant, miris “ philosophical” interpretation of their religion, see A.-J. Festugiere, La Revelation
rationibus vestigare, cuius rei admiratio adeo totam Greciam, auctorc Platone, post se d ’Hermes Tnsmegiste, vol. 4: Le dieu inconnu et la gnose (Paris, 1954), esp. pp. 1-6. The iden­
traxit. quod ut testis est Cicero, sine preceptis officiorum nullus auderet se philosophum tification of pagan deities with metaphysical entities in the Platonic intelligible cosmos
appellare; ceteri quidem non philosophi, sed phvsici dicebantur.” See also ibid., 4:138 goes back at least to middle Platonism, and is reported in Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
and De lab. Here., ed. Gilman, pp. 254-5. Salutati’s probable sources here are Cicero. and Augustine, among other Christian Fathers; the fullest pagan account ot the deities
I use. 1.19.20: Augustine, Civ. Dei VIII.3; Vincent ot Beauvais, Spec. hist. III.56; and is to be found in Proclus’ Theologia Platonica (see Part III, below). For the fortuna ot this
Walter Burlev, Liber de vita et moribus philosopborum, cap. 52 (ed. Knust [Tuebingen, 1886], notion in the Trecento, see Ronconi (note 3, above) and C. G. Osgood, Boccaccio on Poetry
pp. 214-234)'. (Princeton, 1930).
38 PART I FLORENCE 39

tion of the religious im pulse” , was naturally an alarm ing one for tradi­ T h e friars and others who opposed the hum anities were, however, like
tionalists. A m a n like Dominici, eager to draw a clear line between the ancient C h u rc h Fathers in this respect, that they w anted, incon­
paganism and Christian truth, would thus have a strong motive for e m ­ sistently, both to discredit P la to ’s teachings and to use his authority for
phasizing the differences between P la to ’s doctrine and behavior a nd that their own apologetic purposes. Hence they also launched against their
of orthodox Christianity. H ence there began anew a recrudescence of the opponents the famous report, known from Cicero, A ugustine, Lactantius
“ antiplatonic tra d itio n ” am o n g the enemies of the hum anities. In his a t­ and other sources, that Plato had ejected poets from his ideal city because
tack on Salutati, the Lucula noctis, Dominici raised again the old charge of their corrupting influence. T his line of attack on poetry was at least
that Plato had believed in the transm igration of souls, a doctrine inconsis­ a century old, and the hum anists had long erected a standard defense.
tent with the Christian idea of personal immortality, and one which had Boccaccio’s answ er in his De genealogia deorum (X IV . 19) was typical.20
led to the downfall of the heretic O r ig e n .14 O rigen had also been seduced Plato, he explained, had m eant only to exclude a few admittedly vicious
by the attractiveness of the doctrine of recollection and by the plausibility “ comic poets” from his polity; he had certainly no intention of rejecting
of Plato’s unorthodox doctrine of creation. W ith doctrines such as these, the great poetic educators of m ankind such as H om er. T his defense, u n ­
it is no wonder that Plato had denied the resurrection of the b o d y !15 fortunately, was spoilt by the reintroduction into the West of P lato’s
Dominici also charged that Plato had been a snob and that Socrates had Republic in the Latin version of Chrysoloras. From C hrysoloras’ version
shown contempt for public honors and magistracies— charges similar to (which Dominici exultantly misattributed to S a lutati’s protege, Bruni)
those made against Niccoli.16 According to Dominici, the fact that Dominici learned that Plato had indeed excluded even H om er, the
Socrates lived his life in obedience to a “ d e m o n ” showed, on the authority greatest of G reek poets, from the ideal state, and he pointed out the fact
of canon law, that he was a h e re tic .17 By other critics of the pagan with clumsy satire in his Lucula noctis:
philosophers, the ancient stories of how C ato of Utica and the A thenian For Plato, that glittering lamp of the pagans, held that poets should be ex­
Cleom brotus had committed suicide after reading the Phaedo were revived pelled from the commonwealth he described so eloquently and learnedly,
again, this time in a more unfavorable lig h t.18 Plato’s repellent teaching and lest it should be thought that he only proscribed the comic poets, as
of the com m on ownership of w om en, children and goods— a doctrine some partisans [of the poets] struggle to maintain, he specially rejected
hardly calculated to make him a popular favorite in Florence— was well Homer, the most noble of the poetic tribe. ... I wonder why the reverend
Giovanni Boccaccio, defending the poets with all his wits and bitterly at­
known from A ristotle’s Politics and had been routinely condem ned by tacking those who attack them, should have armed himself (as he says) with
scholastic c o m m e n ta to rs.19 the shield of Plato, who bade all of them—Homer being particulary
mentioned—depart from every city, as has been said. But there had not yet
14 Lucula noctis, ed. Coulon, p. 189. Salutati late in life entered a pious phase in which appeared on the scene the right honorable Leonardo Bruni, whom you
he distanced himself from his more classicizing disciples; in this phase he, too, upbraided [Salutati] have made famous for his knowledge, who with copious speech
Plato for the doctrine of palingenesis: see Novati, 3:431 and De lab. Here. ed. Ullman, p. has brought back the aforesaid booklet (!) from Greek into Latin.21
532; Witt, Salutati, chapter 15.
15 That Plato’s doctrine of recollection had led to the error of Origen: Lucula noctis, ed.
Coulon, pp. 188, 279, 424f.; that Plato had denied the resurrection of the body: ibid., p. no. XI. While the doctrine, initially known from Calcidius’ translation of the Timaeus,
358 (based on Augustine, Civ. Dei X X II.28); that God did not create everything in nature had been explained away satisfactorily in the twelfth century, the reception of Aristotle’s
according to Plato: ibid., p. 416 (from Augustine, Civ. Dei X .. 31). Politics in the thirteenth century had made its real import impossible to ignore, and in
16 Ejd. Coulon, p. 158: “ Socrates honores et magistratus contempsit ... turbam fourteenth century compilations of canon law the doctrine was invariably rejected with
hominum Plato. ” horror; Dominici and other mendicant opponents of the humanities would almost cer­
17 Ibid., p. 380. tainly be acquainted with this literature.
18 Cicero had first retailed the story—repeated by Augustine and Lactantius—of 20 The argument, which goes back to Mussato, was also repeated by Salutati, De lab.
Cleombrotus, who, convinced by Plato’s eloquence in the Phaedo that the next life was Here., ed. Ullman, 4-5 and by the anonymous author of a defense of Vergil ca. 1397,
preferable to this one, had committed suicide by hurling himself from the city wall ( Tusc., in a letter falsely attributed to Bruni; it has now been edited by D. J. B. Robey, “ Virgil’s
1.84). This was a widely quoted story among fourteenth-century writers. See for example Statue at Mantua and the Defence of Poetry: An Unpublished Letter of 1397,”
Salutati (Novati, 4:493) and Filippo Villani (cited in Witt, Salutati, p. 204); the letter of Rinascimento, n.s., 9 (1969): 191-203.
Cardinal Guillaume Fillastre to his chapter [Text 3|, takes it for granted that they are ac­ 21 See Lucula noctis, ed. Coulon, pp. 163-164: “ Plato enim ethnicorum iubar coruscans
quainted with the story, as well as with the similar tale of Cato found in Seneca, Epist. a republica, quam diserto atque facundo stilo descripsit, censuit pellendos poetas, ac ne
X X IV .6 and Plutarch, Cato, cap. 73. For other examples, see Baron, Crisis (1966), p. 106. putaretur solummodo comicos proscripsisse, ut quidam parciales in facto defendere pug-
19 The history of this doctrine in the Middle Ages is told by S. Kuttner in “ Gratian and nant [i.e., Boccaccio, De gen. deor. XIV], specialiter honestiorem ex omnium poetarum
Plato’’, in his History of Ideas and Doctrines of Canon Law in the Middle Ages (London, 1980), caterva Homerum emissit. ... Miror quare venerandus Johannes Boccaci, totis ingeniis
40 PART I FLORENCE 41

Dominici obviously thought it a doubly delicious irony that the tradi­ not have fled a m a r ty r ’s death as the apostle had d o n e .24 Moreover,
tional “ shield” of the hum anists, in a new translation by the protege of Cicero in the Tusculan Disputations (1.12) had said that there was no more
their leader, should turn out to have taken a position directly contrary eloquent or complete defense of h u m a n im m ortality than in P lato’s book
to their beliefs and expectations. “ O n the Soul” . If such were the case, to recover for Latin readers so elo­
q u e n t an a rgum e nt for a central Catholic doctrine would offer powerful
* * *
evidence of the value of the new h u m a n e studies in a Christian culture.
Bruni, of course, did not translate the Republic, although he m ay have It is no surprise, then, that Salutati as early as 1393 was trying to ob­
planned to do so early in his c a reer.-2 His first Plato translation was al­ tain a copy of the twelfth-century translation of the Phaedo made by
most certainly of the Phaedo, which he began and finished at S a lu ta ti’s H enricus Aristippus. W hen he Finally obtained a copy, around
instance in the last six m onths of his first Florentine period, before his D ecem ber of 1401, he m ust have been disappointed.25 He would have
departure for the papal court in M a rc h of 1405.23 S a lu ta ti’s interest in discovered, to be sure, the welcome fact that Plato had not only not en­
the text is easy to understand. T h e Phaedo, after all, was known from couraged suicide in the Phaedo, but had positively prohibited it. But if he
Cicero to be the dialogue containing Socrates’ autobiographical account had hoped for an eloquent defense of im m ortality to put in the hands of
of how he had turned away from natural philosophy to ethics. It was Latin readers, he would not have found it in the medieval version.
also the dialogue in which (according to the enemies of the humanities) A ristippus’ was a typical medieval rendering: strictly word-for-word,
Plato had encouraged suicide. T h e famous story of Socrates’ brave d e ­ obscure, awkward, b a rb a ro u s— the very opposite of mellifluous style,
m eanor in prison had long fascinated Salutati as an exam ple of the vir­ “ halfway between prose and p o e try ” , of which Cicero had spoken. It
tue of which the pagans were capable; in his De fato of 1396 he mused was then natural that Salutati should h a n d the version over to his elo­
on the possibility that Socrates, had he been in St. P e te r ’s place, might quent young protege Bruni, who had recently learned Greek with
Chrysoloras, and should ask him to produce a more elegant version.
Several years previously Salutati had in a similar way handed over to A n­
tonio Loschi (who did not then know G reek) L eontius’ crude version of
poetas defendens, acriter invehit in invehentes in eos, sub Platonis (ut dicit) scuto
munitus qui omnes, ut prefcrtur, cum Homero notato a civitatibus cunctis iubet abire. the Iliad, asking the young poet to “ adorn and orna m e nt the m atter [r«],
Verum nondum florebat vir honorandus, quern scientia fecisti famosum, Aretinus llle, and m aking use both of unchanged and of altered words, add decoration
qui prefatum libellum Platonis de grcco in latinum copioso sermone reduxit.” The point and such splendor of language that you display and echo that Homeric
is repeated ibid., p. 408. Dominici must have been using the Chrvsoloras translation,
or at least have heard something of its contents, and misassigned it (perhaps with quality which we all have in m ind, not only in the poetic im agination [m-
malicious intent) to Bruni. Salutati probably also had a copy of Chrysoloras’ version, ventio] of the work, but even in its la n g u a g e .” 26*Salutati criticized Leon­
for he quotes Rep. I in a controversy with Vergerio (1405) over a famous dictum of tius for his word-for-word technique, which had “ nothing pleasing in it”
Themistocles; see Novati. 4:78f. Bruni, too, probably knew the version, for he refers
to the institution of the guardian class ( Republic II) in his De militia of 1421 (ed. C. C. and advised Loschi to make his version m ore eloquent by preserving the
Bavley in his War and Society in Renaissance Florence [Toronto, 1961], pp. 371-2): “ Plato res rather than the verba. T h a t this advice was given to Bruni as well is
quoque in iis preclaris libris qui sunt ab eo de re publica scripti, cum et agricolas et evident from a rather gushing letter the latter wrote to Niccoli about the
ceteros necessarios usus in civitate constituisset, unum genus hominum longe ceteris
anteposuit, quos custodes appellavit. Horum ille munus fore dixit arma tenere civesque time when he was beginning his translation (a letter which often accom­
alios ab hostibus tutari, quibus etiam mirifica quedam privilegia tribuit honoreque et panies the published version of the translation itself):
dignitate multum admodum voluit antecellere. Hos illos duros in armis ferocesque
adversus hostem lore dixit oportere, in cives autem benignos et mites.” The vocabulary
here used is close to that used by Chrysoloras in the cited passage (374A-E), which sug­ 24 See Baron, Crisis (1966), pp. 310-311; the De fato et fortuna has now been edited by
gests Bruni knew and used his teacher’s translation. See also vol. 2, App. 18, for C. Bianca (Florence, 1985).
Ficino’s use of the translation as an aid in preparing his own independent version. 25 For Salutati’s first attempt to get a copy ot the Aristippus translation, see Novati,
22 It is usually said that Bruni planned to translate all of Plato, but the only evidence 2:444; for his eventual success, see App. 1.
lor this is a phrase in his well-known letter to Niccoli quoted in note 27 below: “ Cuius 26 Novati, 2:356-7; quoted by J. R. Seigel in Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance
ego libros si aliquando absolvero, et latinos quemadmodum cupimus effecero . . . ” This Humanism (Princeton, 1968), pp. 116-117 (Seigel’s translation). The desire to have the
letter in at least one manuscript has the title “ Epistola communis ad omnes libros Greek philosophers speak a more eloquent Latin goes back, like so much else in Salutati’s
Platonis ’ (see Cat. A. no. 93), but there is nothing to prove that this title goes back humanism, to Petrarch; see, e.g., Rerum mem. 11.31. Salutati himself, though he knew
to Bruni himself. little or no Greek, made a similar nfacimento stilistico of Plutarch’s De cohihenda ira in the
See vol. 2. App. 1. translation of Simone Autumano; see Weiss, Medieval and Humanist Greek. p. 2161.
42 PART I FLORENCE 43

philosophers, theologians, and doctors. By ad verbum translation is not

Although I had already, my dear Niccolo, a strong love for your Plato
(for such I like to call him for whom you are always contending against the m eant w hat m odern writers call a “ literal” translation (which would
ignorant mob), when I began to translate him, so great was the access of most of them be considered loose by medieval standards) but a thor­
goodwill I experienced, that it seems to me that I have come to love him oughgoing duplication in Latin of every word and every particle of the
now for the first time, and that before I had merely had affection for him. G reek text. It was perfectly ordinary for even the better medieval
You can’t imagine anything more wisely or eloquently written. I under­
translators to supply Latin words for G reek particles which have no real
stand this so much better now since for my task of translating I am com­
pelled to examine intensely from every side and exhaust the several sayings equivalents in Latin. Some translators insisted on so bizarre a practice
of the man. So I am extremely grateful to Coluccio, my father and teacher, as the retention of the genitive-absolute construction in Latin, which
who by enjoining this task upon me did me a great service. Before, I had lacks it; others did not blush to supply the missing definite article in
merely met Plato; now, I believe, I know him. Latin by introducing Le, li or la from medieval F rench.28* Such transla­
If I shall ever finish his books, translating them the way I should like,
tions were naturally extremely difficult to understand (to say nothing of
even you, dear Niccolo, will despise everything you have yet read in com­
parison with the majesty of this man. He has the utmost urbanity, the eloquence), and to “ crack” them required long hours of doctrinal
highest method of disputation, and the deepest subtlety; his fruitful and reading u n d e r the guidance of a competent maste'r well supplied with
divine sentiments are conveyed with a marvelous pleasantness on the part com m entaries and apparatus. O nly then, if at all, would an a u th o r’s
of the interlocutors, and with extraordinary verbal power. In his discourse scientia become usable by the student.
there is the greatest facility, and much admirable charts [grace] as the
If, however, as Petrarch and Salutati believed, persuading the hum an
Greeks say. There is nothing labored, nothing violent; all is said as though
bv a man who has words and their laws at his command, that best and will of moral and religious truths was a more im portant goal than
richest of natures expressing all the sentiments of his mind with the greatest dem onstrating those truths to the intellect, then a nother method of
facility and beauty.27 translation would have to be found. T he supposed “ scientific” accuracy
of word-for-word translation could be sacrificed in exchange for
T h e desire to preserve the eloquence of the ancient G reek authors in
rhetorical pow er— so long, of course, as the general sense of what an
Latin, which Salutati advised and Bruni put into effect, produced a
au th o r wrote was preserved. T h e reform of translation technique also
revolution in translation technique which reversed a thousand years of
had to meet a nother challenge. T he audience the hum anists had created
medieval practice. Medieval translators had as a rule employed the word-
for their studies— am a te u r gentlemen, princes and courtiers, literary
for-word, or ad verbum, method of translating. T hey had done this in part
c hurchm en, schoolteachers, professional b u re a u c rats—did not as a rule
through the influence of J e r o m e ’s advice on biblical translation, and in
have the time or the gust to struggle through lengthy doctrinal reading
part through a certain naive awe of the auctores, but mostly because their
of the kind necessary to make sense of the “ Sybilline m u tte rin g s” (as
desire was to produce accurate scientific texts for use by professional

27 Ep. 1.8 (1.1): “ Etsi ego, mi Nicolae, prius quoque vehementer amabam Platonem 28 For bibliography on medieval methods of translation, see Steel (q.v.), 1: *43f. For
tuum (sic enim placet michi appellare ilium, pro quo tu adversus indoctorum turbam om- studies of Bruni’s concept of translation, see H. Harth, “ Leonardo Brunis Selbstver-
ni tempore pugnasti), tamen ex quo hunc dialogum eius latinum facere incepi, tantus staendnis als Uebersetzer,’’ Archiv fuer Kulturgeschichte 50 (1968): 41-63; G. Folena,
mihi benivolentiae cumulus accessit, ut nunc demum amare ipsum videar, prius autem “ Volgarizzare e tradurre: idea e terminoiogia della traduzione dal Medio Evo italiano
solummodo dilexisse. Cave enim existimes quicquam omnino reperiri posse quod aut sa- e romanzo ail’Umanesimo europeo’’ in La traduzione: Saggi e studi (Trieste, 1973), pp.
pientius scriptum sit aut facundius. Quod quidem ego nunc magis quam antea intelligo, 95-101; G. P. Norton, The Ideology and Language of Translation in Renaissance France and
cum ob convertendi diligentiam singula eius viri dicta undique conteram atque olfaciam Their Humanist Antecedents (Geneva, 1984), pp. 39-43; L. Gualdo Rosa, “ Le traduzioni
necesse est. Maximas itaque Colucio patri ac praeceptori meo gratias ago, qui injungen- dal greco nella prima meta del ’400: alle radici del classicismo europeo’’, in Hommages
do hoc munere tantum michi beneficium attulit; prius enim Platonem dumtaxat a Henri Bardon, Collection Latomus, no. 187 (Brussels, 1985), pp. 177-193; B. P.
videram, nunc vero etiam, ut michi videor, cognovi. Cuius ego libros si aliquando ab- Copenhaver, “ Translation, terminology and style in philosophical discourse,” in
solvero, et latinos quemadmodum cupimus effecero, ne tu, mi Nicolae, quicquid adhuc C H R P , pp. 77-110. For studies of Bruni’s translations in particular see S. Troilo, “ Due
legisti prae illius viri maiestate contemnes. Est enim in illo plurima urbanitas summaque traduttori dell’Etica Nicomachea, Roberto di Lincoln e Leonardo Bruni,” A tti del R. 1st.
disputandi ratio ac subtilitas; uberrimae divinaeque sententiae mirifica disputantium Veneto di scienze e lettere 91 (1931/32): 275-305; Garin (1955); idem, “ Le traduzioni
jocunditate et incredibili dicendi copia referuntur. In oratione vero summa facilitas, et umanistiche di Aristotele del sec. X V ,” Atti e memone della Accad. Toscana “ La Colum­
multa atque admiranda, ut Greci dicunt, Nihil enim insudationis, nihil violentie: baria’’, n.s., 16 (1947-50): 55-104; Berti (q.v.); idem, “ La traduzione di Leonardo
omnia sic dicta sunt, quasi ab homine qui verba atque eorum leges habeat in potestate, Bruni del Fedone di Platone ed un codice greco della Biblioteca Bodmeriana,” Museum
ipsa optima ac ditissirna natura omnes animi conceptus summa cum facilitate venustate- Helveticum 35 (1978): 125-148; M. Accame Lanzillota, Leonardo Bruni traduttore di
que exprimente.” Demostene: La “ Pro Ctesiphonte' ’ (Genoa, 1986).
44 PART I FLORENCE 45

Bruni called them) of the medieval translators. A reformed translation [i.e., to those who spoke his own language], he is playing the part of a com­
technique would have to cater to the new aristocratic habit of reading mentator rather than of a translator.33
for pleasure.29
T h e net result of these influences was to bring Bruni to develop his own
T o solve this technical problem the early hum anists looked, as so
ad sententiam method of translation, whose leading aim was to preserve the
often, to their m aster C ic e ro.30 Cicero taught them that the practice of
full m eaning (sensum or sententiam) of the original without sacrificing any
literal translation was the m ark of an uneducated person, and that a
of its literary effect. This, thought Bruni, could be accomplished by
good “ oratorical” rendering preserved the propriety of Latin usage
bringing into play the full resources of classical vocabulary and technical
while reproducing the artistic effect of the original G reek. According to
rhetoric, and also by acquiring a com m and of the history and culture of
Cicero, one could say anything in Latin that could be said in Greek, so
the original a u th o r ’s period.34 T h e translator needed all the knowledge
there was no obstacle to reproducing the sententia of the G reek authors
a nd rhetorical skill of his original to make a satisfactory translation, not
in an equally powerful form in Latin. In the specimens of translation
just a lexical knowledge of the Latin ‘‘equivalents” for Greek words. He
Cicero offered in his own philosophical works— specimens which the
needed a refined literary sense capable of u nde rsta nding and reproducing
humanists had studied closely31— the ad sententiam m ethod was brilliantly
the unique flavor of an a u th o r ’s mind and style;
illustrated.
But what of accuracy? Would not departing from the words of the auc- Just as men who copy a painting borrow the shape, attitude, stance and
general appearance therefrom, not thinking what they themselves would
tor falsify his doctrine and so reduce the credit of the sciences, as a later
do, but what another has done; so in translation the best translator will turn
critic of B ru n i’s translations charged?3'2 If Bruni had any qualm s on the his whole mind, heart, and will to his original author, and in a sense
matter, he could have learned from his teacher Chrysoloras the paradox transform him, considering how he may express the shape, attitude and
that “ faithful” translators were not only rhetorically ineffective, but stance of his speech, and all his lines and colors. ... For every writer has
were also in reality unfaithful to the m eaning, since proprietas, the correct his proper style: Cicero his sonority and richness, Sallust his dry and suc­
cinct expression, Livy his rough grandeur.35
usage that guaranteed a fixed m eaning, resided not in words but in
sense-units. T ra n sla tin g the Greek authors in this way became for Bruni and the
Manuel used to say about translation that to translate ad uerbum into Latin other hum anists at once a focus for literary em ulation and also for
was wholly ineffective. It was not only absurd, he averred, but even, some­ historical a \ d philological research and criticism. As Bruni expressed it
times, perverted the sense of the Greek. One must translate according to in his later treatise De recta interpretations.
the sense, he said; those who took pains with matters of this sort would
in this way make it a rule for themselves not to alter in anv way the pro­ Correct translation is an extremely difficult task. One must have, first of
priety of Greek usage. For if anyone alter some [part] of Greek propriety all, a knowledge of the language to be translated, and no small or common
with the object of speaking more clearly and brilliantly to his own people
33 Chrysoloras views are here described in a letter of another oi his students, Cencio
de’ Rustici: “ Sed ut de interpretis natura aliquid dicam, terebat Manuel, homo sine ulla
See G. Olson. Literature as Recreation in the Late M iddle Ages (Ithaca, 1982), especially dubitatione divinus, conversionem in latinum ad verbum minime valere. Nam non modo
chapters 5 and 6 on Boccaccio. absurdum esse asseverabat, verum etiam interdum grecam sententiam otnnino
30 For a discussion of Bruni’s debt to Cicero’s ideas on translation, see mv remarks pervertere. Sed ad sententiam transferre opus esse aiebat hoc pacto ut ii qui huiusmodi
in The Humanism of Leonardo Bruni, pp. 208-210. The humanists would also, of course, rebus operam darent, legem sibi ipsis indicerent, ut nullo modo proprietas greca im-
have known Horace's famous advice in the Ars poetica, lines 133-4: “ Nee verbum verbo mutaretur; nam si quispiam, quo luculentius apertiusque suis hominibus loquatur, ali­
curabis reddere lidus interpres. " quid grece proprietatis immutarit, eum non interpretis sed exponentis officio uti
!l For Bruni’s re-use of a passage of the Phaedrus translated by Cicero, see App. 3. (Bertalot, 2:133). The discovery that language only acquires meaning at the propositional
In many sixteenth-century editions of the Latin Plato, the editors collected and repro­ level was made, coincidentally (if it is coincidence), about the same time in scholastic
duced the various passages of Plato translated by Cicero in his philosophica or preserved logic; see H. Elie, Le complexe significabile (Paris, 1936).
in Priscian; see. c.g.. Cat. B, nos. 96, 111, 115, 136, 141, and Texts 84, 87, and 88. 34 Bruni never explicitly states the requirement that one needs to understand the
for modern discussions ot Cicero’s translations of Plato, see A. Traglia, “ Cicerone history and culture of the period of one’s original author, but the need for such knowledge
traduttore di Platonc e di Epicuro,’’ Studi in onore di V. De Falco (Naples, 1971); R. is implied by various remarks in the De recta interpretation, for instance where he criticises
Poncelet, C.ueron, huducteur de Platon (Paris, 1957) with the useful review of A. K. the medieval translator of Aristotle’s Ethics for not knowing that Ttpripa meant census, not
Douglas. "Platoms Annulus:'“ in Greece and Rome, ser. 2. 9 (March. 1962): 48-50. honorabilitas; Bruni reconstructed the sense by finding a parallel historical institution in
Sec mv account ol Alfonso ot Cartagena's attack on Bruni’s translation of Aristo­ Livy. See The Humanism of Leonardo Brum, p. 227.
tle s i.lhics in I'he H um anis m of Leonardo B r um . pp. 201-208. 35 Tr. Hankins in The Humanism of Leonardo Brum, pp. 220-221.
46 PART I FLORENCE 47

knowledge at that, but one that is wide, idiomatic, accurate, and detailed, tions, there are occasional difficulties about assigning speeches to the ap­
acquired from a long reading of the philosophers and orators and poets and propriate interlocutors. T h e re are frequent misinterpretations of the
all other writers. ... Next he must have such a grasp of the language into force appropriate to the G reek particles (again a com m on fault of
which he translates, that he will have a thorough command of it, have it
medieval and Renaissance translators). But these are m inor blemishes in
completely within his power, so when he must render word-for-word, he
will not beg or borrow or leave the word in Greek out of ignorance of Latin comparison with the gross errors of which Aristippus was capable
__ He will be familiar with the idioms and figures of speech used by the (especially in the m a tte r of idiom).
best authors, and will imitate them when he translates, and he will avoid Yet B r u n i’s translation does have its weaknesses, the chief of which is
verbal and grammatical novelties, especially those that are imprecise and his failure to understand the metaphysical and methodological
barbarous__ In addition, he must possess a sound ear, so that his transla­
background of the dialogue, which in the Phaedo especially tends to be
tion does not disturb and destroy the fulness and rhythmical qualities of the
original. For since in every good writer—and most especially in Plato and assumed rather than explained. C om bined with a general inconsistency
Aristotle—there is both learning and literary style, he and he only will be in the rendering of technical terminology, the effect is sufficiently serious
a satisfactory translator who is able to preserve both.36 to prevent a philosophically-minded reader from extracting from the
dialogue a clear account of such im portant Platonic doctrines as par­
B ru n i’s new m ethod of translation, applied to the Phaedo, w rought a
ticipation, the separate existence of the Forms, and the hypothetical
miraculous change upon the obscure and tortured utterance of A ristip­
method. Bruni may have m ade Plato more readable, but that does not
p u s ’ version. Indeed, if B runi used the version at all, the debt has been
m ean that Platonic philosophy was thereby made more intelligible to the
completely effaced.37 T h e new version was eminently readable. B r u n i’s
Renaissance re a d e r .39
Latinity, if not quite classically pure, is still excellent by the standards of
T h e re are also a few signs in this first Plato translation of tendencies
the early fifteenth century, and the translation is for the most part ex­
to suppress or alter unsuitable material, tendencies which later became
tremely clear, though inevitable patches of confusion rem ain. H e only
m uch more pronounced in B r u n i’s Plato versions. T h o u g h he may have
rarely commits the sin with which he later charged the medieval
wished to do so, Bruni does not remove P la to ’s doctrine of palingenesis,
translators of Aristotle, of using transliterated Greek words despite the
probably because the doctrine was already so well known that it would
existence of good Latin equivalents.38 T h e prose-rhythm is classical and
riot have served any purpose. O r perhaps he thought that the passage
sentence structure aims at a somewhat pithy version of the C iceronian
could easih be allegorized. At any rate, he does, curiously, remove
period. T here is an elegant use of figures of speech and thought, imitated
P la to ’s unedifying suggestion that m en who displayed civic virtues
in most cases from the G reek, or, where such im itation would have
would be reincarnated as bees, wasps or an ts.40 He also consciously
violated Latin proprietas, adopted from classical Latin analogies to G reek
bowdlerizes one passage where Socrates uses an illustration which
figures. In short, Bruni has taken a nearly opaque school text and m ade
assumes homosexual love to be a normal p h e n o m e n o n .41* Later, as we
it into a piece of literature capable of giving pleasure to anyone educated
to read Ciceronian Latin.
39 See App. 3A.
T h o u g h not as accurate as some of his later versions, the translation 40 At 82A lOf. Plato describes how the dead will be reincarnated into animals whose
also marks a clear advance over Aristippus in its u n d e rsta n d in g of the nature most closely resembles the character they displayed in their life as men. Persons
Greek. Bruni shows on the whole a remarkable grasp of G reek who display civic virtue would thus be translated into the bodies of such “ political”
animals as bees, wasps, and ants. Bruni translates: “ Felicissimi ergo istorum sunt et in
vocabulary, syntax and idiom, and some understanding of the historical optimum locum demigrant quicunque popularem ac civilem uirtutem quam temperan-
and literary background of the dialogue. T h e re are some slips, omissions, tiam ac iustitiam uocant exercuere ex more et exercitatione factam, sine philosophia at-
and simplifications of the G reek, and, as in most Renaissance transla- que ingenio. Patet enim decere hos in aliud quoddam genus ciuile miteque peruenire
fierique ex illis uiros modestos” (BAV, Vat. lat. 3348, f. I09r). It is unlikely that Bruni
simply did not recognize the words for bees, wasps and ants since Aristippus gives a cor­
36 Bruni, De recta interpretations (Schrijten, pp. 81-96), tr. Hankins in The Humanism of rect translation ( CPM A 2:40).
Leonardo Bruni, pp. 217-229. Cf. Cicero, Oral. 162f. and Fin. 1.3. 41 Phd. 73D 5f.: Ouxouv otaQa cm oi epaaxat, oxav ’(Scjaiv Xupav r) tpaxtov r) aXXo xt oiq xa
37 See Berti, pp. 6-7. Berti is preparing an edition of the text, which is to appear in traiStxa auxcLv uosQt ypfjaSai, Ttacryouat xouxo- tyvcaaav xe xf]v Xupav xai ev xrj Siavoi'a £Xa@ov
the series Studia Platonica saec. X V published by Olschki for the Accademia Toscana “ La xo £iSo<; xou TtaiSo?, ou r)v f) Xupa; xouxo M eaxtv avapvricni;- (Bruni’s version]: “ Nescis igitur,
Columbaria” . inquit, hoc amantibus evenire cum lyram aut pallam aut quid aliud ex his rebus aspiciant
18 Phd. 70C 1: comedus; 69C 8-D 1: narthacophori quidem multi sunt, sed bacchi pauci. Cp. quibus eorum amate consueverint uti? Nam et cognoscunt lyram et simul accipiunt
Ap. (version 1) 33E 1: dimotus; Cn. (version 1) 53B 6: politiae\ 54D 3: conbantes. mente formam puelle cuius erat Ivra. Hoc vero est meminisse.” (MS cit., f. 103v).
48 PART I FLORENCE 49

shall sec, Bruni took much bolder steps to shape the Latin Plato to his even more “ universalist” than S a lutati’s. H e m aintained that the pagan
readers’ expectations. poets had been virtuous a nd wise monotheists whose apparent
* * * polytheism m ust be interpreted allegorically; he argued that there was lit­
tle m oral difference between ancient polytheism and the m odern cult of
In M arch and April of 1405, a great change came over B ru n i’s cir­ the saints; he even took the radical view that there was no real difference
cumstances, for in those months he com peted for and won a position in between pagan and Christian v irtu e — that the saints, like the great pagan
the papal curia as apostolic secretary. T h e appointm ent came as a great heroes, were motivated by a h u m a n love of power and glory to achieve
relief to Bruni, who had recently been forced to return to law school, their feats of mortification.
which he loathed. His new post was not completely secure, for a change Views such as these no doubt shocked m any at the papal court, but by
of popes might conceivably turn him out, but it was at any rate literary the time Bruni came to R om e, the hum anists were in the ascendant. A
work which offered some congenial com panionship and allowed a good few m onths before B ru n i’s arrival— the events are probably con­
deal of spare time for his scholarly projects. These had been tem porarily nected— C a rdina l Cosimo d e ’Migliorati had been elected as Pope Inno­
interrupted by the move to R o m e — he had had to leave most of his books cent V II. T h e new pope had been and rem ained the patron of Francesco
behind—and even when Niccoli did send him his books sometime in the da Fiano; we have several poems written by the older hum anist which
fall of 1405, Bruni still felt keenly the loss of Florence's rich private evidently accom panied gifts of pheasant and stag to the prelate. Innocent
libraries. Still, at least he was not compelled to spend his life as an expert V II, as Pastor already pointed out, has an excellent claim to rank as the
in ‘‘the yawning science” , as Bruni referred to the law. first hum a n ist pope of the Renaissance. H e extended his protection wide­
In Rome, Bruni found the hum anities in a situation similar in some ly to literary men, and even tried to revive the University of Rome, with
respects to that which existed in Florence. T here was a group of young chairs not only in professional subjects, but also in g ram m ar, rhetoric,
humanists, including A ntonio Loschi, Poggio Bracciolini, and (som e­ and G reek. It was natural that Bruni should win the affection ot a pope
what later) Pier Paolo V ergerio— all form er disciples of Salutati— and an with such interests.43 It was equally natural that, in gratitude for the
older man, Francesco da Fiano, who had served in the papal curia since p o p e ’s favor, Bruni should decide to dedicate to the pope the translation
the 1380s and took S alutati’s place as eminence gnse. A poem by B ar­ of the Phaedo he had m ade in Florence. H ence it was that sometime in
tolomeo Bayguera shows us Francesco in the role of cicerone, guiding his the fall of 1405 Niccoli sent Bruni from Florence an illuminated presenta­
young hum anist friends aro u n d the ruins of R om e and lecturing them on tion copy of the translation, to which Bruni added a flattering preface.44
surviving fragments of ancient sculpture.42 T h e re was also in R om e, as B r u n i’s dedication of the Phaedo, however, had a nother aim in view
in Florence, some signs of hostility to hum anist studies on the part of beyond expressing his gratitude to Innocent. For from the latter part of
religious philistines. Some time before B r u n i’s arrival in R o m e we hear the preface it is clear that Bruni also hoped that P la to ’s work, with its
of an orator at the papal court who had aroused the animosity of m any a rg u m e n ts for im mortality, would help support the claims of the
m embers of the curia by quoting extensively from the pagan poets. hum anities to be useful to the Christian faith. T o shore up his position,
A round the same time a certain magister Stephanus A retinus had Bruni cited the well-known patristic opinion that Plato had plagiarized
delivered a sermon in which the reading of pagan poets was bitterly a t­ his teachings from the H ebrew prophets. But whereas the Fathers had in­
tacked. vented this story as an apologetic device, to show the pagans that their
Francesco da Fiano had replied to these slurs in his treatise Contra
oblocutores et detractores poetarum. In this work Francesco took a position 43 There is in fact evidence that Bruni may have been the moving spirit behind Inno­
cent’s revival of the University ot Rome: see G. Griffiths, 'Leonardo Bruni and the
As Aristippus had not bowdlerized—writing “ amatores” and “ pueri” tor Bruni’s Restoration of the University of R om e,” R Q 26 (1973): 1-10.
"amantes” and “ amatae” ( CPMA 2:27)—there would seem to be no doubt that this 44 For these details, see App. 1. The same pattern of publication—private circulation
bowdlerization is intentional. among friends in Florence, then dedication to a pope—was followed by Bruni also in the
See Baron (1955), pp. 401-408; tor further literature on Fiano see G. Billanovich, case of the Gorinas: see below, p. 53. Two manuscripts (Cat. A, no.s 34 and 335) give
1’ (aula, A. Campana, and P. O. Kristeller, "Scuola di retorica e poesia bucolica nel an alternate version ot the pietace to Innocent VII which omits the llattery at the begin­
I'reeento italiano," IM U 6 (1963): 203-234 and 7 (1964): 279-324; C. M. Monti, ‘‘Una ning ( = Scknften , p. 3. lines 6-25); they are both early manuscripts, probably ot Franco-
raccolta di exempla epistolarum. I. Lettere e carmi di Francesco da Fiano,’’ IM U 27 Burgundian provenance, and may reflect the distaste ot persons belonging to the French
(1984): 121-160. obedience for extravagant praises ot the rival pope.
50 PART I FLORENCE 51

deepest wisdom was derivative from the Ju d e o -C h ristia n tradition, Bruni B r u n i’s line of defense recalls S a lutati’s approach in its stress on the utili­
used the story to defend the value of pagan wisdom in a thoroughly ty of pagan to Christian culture rather than on the similarity of the one
Christian society. to the other. It was clearly a m uch more diplomatic stance than the in­
But since learning and knowledge may be added to your other marks of flam m atory one adopted by Francesco da Fiano. T his was in keeping
praise, I believed you would welcome it if I presented some of my studies with B r u n i’s m ore conciliatory tem pe ra m e nt and his relatively insecure
under your name. Thus I send you, most blessed and holy father, a position at the papal court. It was also, in the end, the defense of the
precious and truly exquisite thing: Plato’s book On the Immortality of the Soul. hum anities which was to prove the more effective in Renaissance Rome.
For when I read him in Greek and saw the many pious and salubrious say­
ings in this book, it seemed to me a worthy thing to translate, and to * * *
dedicate to Your Holiness, so that you, to whom Heaven has given the care
of souls, might know what the best of philosophers believed about the soul. T o w a rd s the end of his Florentine period and throughout his decade of
You, a most learned and humane man, will find this book, I believe, not service in the papal curia, B ru n i’s studies were chiefly devoted to ancient
unwelcome, and others will find it truly useful both as a source of learning oratory and biography; during this time he continued his series of Lives
and understanding, and as a confirmation of the true faith. For it is not the
from Plutarch and began his Latin versions of the G reek orators. His next
smallest part of religion what happens to our souls after the death of a man.
And although Christian doctrine needs no help in this matter, since all two versions of Plato combined both interests. T h e Apology and the Cnto,
things are so plain and firm that no one but a fool could now entertain any after the Phaedo, provided the richest sources of biographical information
doubt, nevertheless it will bring no small increase to the true faith if they a bout the trial and death of Socrates, so frequently com pared in patristic
see that the most subtle and wise of pagan philosophers held the same belief writings to the trial and death of Christ. T oge the r with X e n o p h o n ’s
about the soul as we hold. Not that Plato agreed with the correct and true
Apologia Socratis, which Bruni translated about the same time, they formed
faith only in this matter: he agreed in many others as well. So it surprises
me not at all that some were of the opinion that this philosopher was a distinct group, and, as the m anuscript tradition suggests, Bruni may
familiar with the books of the Hebrews. Seeing the large measure of agree­ have intended them to be published together.46 But the two dialogues not
ment between their doctrines, nothing would persuade them that Plato had
thought them up by himself; they held that he had either learned them from
the prophet Jeremiah when he went to Egypt, or that he had read the Sep- minime equidem admiror [admirer Baron] fuisse iam nonnullos, qui opinarentur Hebraeo-
tuagint. rum libros huic philosopho non fuisse incognitos. Cernentes enim tantam doctrinarum
This is chronologically impossible, but it shows what I want to show here: convenientiam nullo pacto sibi persuadere poterant ex proprio sensu Platonem ilia dixisse.
sed aut a Hieremia propheta didicisse, cum in Aegyptum profectus est, aut in sacris libris
namely, that I am sending you a philosopher who is by no means inhar­
quos septuaginta interpretes in Graecam linguam transtulerunt, legisse arbitrantur.
monious with the true religion over which you have been placed in authori­ Quod etsi temporum supputatio non patitur, tamen ex hoc intelligi potest, id quod ego
ty by divine approval; indeed, the agreement is so close that his basic beliefs nunc ostendere volo: me scilicet eum philosophum ad te mittere, qui a vera religione,
are thought to have been drawn from our [Christian] books.45 cui tu divino nutu praefectus es, nequaquam abhorret, sed tantam habet convenientiam,
ut fundamenta sententiarum suarum ex nostris libris putetur sumpsisse.”
The story that Plato had read the Septuagint and heard Jeremiah in Egypt was borrow­
45 Schriften, p. 4 (with corrections from Karlsruhe, Ms Reichenau Perg. 131): “ Sed cum ed from the pagans by Origen and is found in Lactantius, Dw. inst. IV .2 [ = PL 6:452a]
inter ceteras tuas laudes doctrina quoque sit rerumque scientia, putavi fore tibi non in- and Augustine, Civ. D e i VIII.4; it is also in Eusebius, Praep. Evan. IX .4 [ = PG 21:786a]
gratum, si aliquid studiorum meorum in tuo nomine ostenderem. Itaque rem pretiosam which Bruni presumably did not know. The chronological impossibility of direct influ­
et valde luculentam, sanctissime ac beatissime pater, ad te mitto: Platonis librum De im- ence was pointed out by Augustine, whom Bruni is here excerpting.
mortalitate animarum [-morum Baron], Nam cum ilium apud Graecos legerem multaque in 46 The early versions of the Cnto and Apology are handed down with Xenophon’s
eo libro pie ac salubriter dicta intuerer, digna mihi res visa est, quam in Latinum con- Apology in at least thirteen of the twenty-one surviving manuscripts (Cat. A, no.s 4, 7,
verterem et maiestati tuae destinarem, ut, cui animarum cura caelitus mandata est, is in- 8, 15, 92, 128, 168, 174 [now lost but a twin of 7, according to Porro, p. 50], 192, 197,
telligfere possit, quid summus philosophus de anima [animo Baron] sentiret. Erit igitur hie 299, 310, 370). Many of these can be associated with the papal curia, and come either
liberj ut opinor, tibi, viro doctissimo atque humanissimo, non ingratus, ceteris vero from collections of Bruni’s early works (e.g., 7, 15, 367, 299 and 310; the last two, dated
hominibus valde utilis turn [cum Baron] ad doctrinam et intelligentiam turn ad rectae fidei 1430 and 1434, are particularly closely related according to Berti, p. 160), or from collec­
confirmationem. Neque enim minima pars religionis est, quae ad animas nostras post tions illustrating the death of Socrates (esp. nos. 128 and 192, which contain the only
mortem hominis pertinet. Qua in re licet Christiana doctrina nullo indigeat adiumento, copy of the primitive version of the argument to the Cnto: see note 48). The codicological
cum omnia usque adeo plana ac firma sint, ut in neminem penitus nisi omnino insi- evidence suggests that no. 192 was made up out of a larger codex containing a collection
pientem ulla dubitatio iam cadere possit, tamen erit ista non mediocris ad recte creden- of Bruni’s early works (rubrics of the Oratio in hypocnlas and his translation of the Fourth
dum accumulatio, si videbunt hominem philosophum ex omni gentilitate acutissimum ac Philippic survive on ff. 16r, 42v). The stemmatic evidence collected by A. Carosini for
sapientissimum idem quod nostri de anima sensisse. Quamquam non in hac dumtaxat her edition of the primitive version of the Cnto (ibid., pp. 151-162) shows that no.s 192,
parte rectae atque verae fidei Plato consensit [consentit Baron], sed in aliis multis, ut 299 and 310 descended from the same archetype. As no.s 299 and 310 clearly derive from
 52 PART I FLORENCE 53

only illustrated the life of the most famous pagan philosopher; they were Florentine period, Bruni seems to have found them em barrassing and
also distinguished examples of ancient eloquence. As Bruni wrote in an substituted new versions for them; he also, it appears, systematically ex­
a rgum e nt to his later redaction of the Apology, the eloquence displayed in punged any reference to them from his correspondence and passed over
the Apology was the eloquence proper to a philosopher, who did not argue them silently in autobiographical accounts of his studies.50
for victory with “ m a c h inam enta et a rte s” , but rather displayed his in­ Bruni evidently felt more confident, as well he might, about his next
nocence with simplicity and contem pt for d e a th .47 T h e Crito too contained Plato version, the Gorgias. This seems to have been begun before the end
the famous “ Speech ol the L aw s’’, in which Socrates imagines what his of 1405, and was finished by N ovem ber of 1409, the date when he sent
Athens, personified in its Laws, would say to him if he should mock them it to Niccoli to be fair-copied. Bruni was probably led to the dialogue by
by a ttem pting to escape from prison. “ H e is especially adm irable in this C ic e ro ’s De oratore, a work which he had imitated a short time before in
section, where he treats of the citizen’s duty to his c o u n tr y ’’, Bruni wrote his own Dialogi.51 In C ic e ro ’s dialogue (1.11.45f.) the interlocutor
later, perhaps rem em bering D o m in ic i’s jibe about Socrates’ contem pt for Crassus, who represents C ic e ro ’s own point of view, traces back to
his public dutie s.48 P la to ’s Gorgias the traditional philosophical opposition to the Ciceronian
As specimens of philology, both of these translations were rather below ideal of the citizen-orator who is eloquent precisely because he is widely
B runi’s usual standard, even for this early period, and though they were cultivated in all the “ h u m a n itie s’’. T h e possibility of a conflict in cultural
ev idently published, Bruni never dedicated them to a n y o n e .49 In his later values between two heroes of the hum anist m ovem ent would surely have
roused B ru n i’s interest in translating the dialogue.
a curial milieu, it thus seems likely that there circulated at the papal court a collection of Bruni did not dedicate the translation for another year and a half,
Bruni's early works including at least his translations of St. Basil, Xenophon’s Hiero and though he may have contem plated a dedication to A lexander V . 52 In
Apology, Plato's Phaedo, Crito, Apology, and Gorgias, and the Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum. 1411, however, an occasion arose which required Bruni to mollify an
*' See Text 11. That Bruni was interested in the Apology and Crito as examples of ancient
eloquence is indicated also by the title of the Apology in the earliest manuscript (Karlsruhe, estranged patron. In the first few months of that year Bruni had realized
Badische Landesbibliothek. Reichenau Perg. 131 = Cat. A, no. 122), which runs (f. 97r) his old am bition of serving in S alutati’s former post as chancellor ot
"Oratio platonica Socratis ad Athenienses habita” . It is interesting that Felice Feliciano Florence. T o do this, he had had to resign his c urrent post as apostolic
of Verona and another later reader of Brunt’s translations of the Apology and Crito chose
to link these works with Poggio’s famous letter to Bruni on the burning of the Hussite secretary to J o h n X X I I I . O nce in the Florentine chancery, however, the
heretic Jerome of Prague at the Council of Constance (E p. Jam. IV .6, ed. Harth, jo b proved to be less to his liking than he had supposed: far more work
2:157-163). In his defense of himself before the Council, reported by Poggio with obvious and far less money than the papal curia, as Poggio reports. In any case,
sympathy, Jerome compares himself to Socrates “ falsis testibus oppressos, iniquissimis
iudiciis condemnatos” . Poggio himself evidently thought Jerome had been unjustly con­ after only three months as chancellor, B runi returned to the papal court,
demned by the ‘‘hypocrites’’ (his word for monks and friars) simply because of his an­ bearing his translation of the Gorgias as a peace offering.53
ticlericalism; he comments to Bruni. “ Nam neque Mucius ille tarn fidenti animo passus J o h n X X I I I was better disposed to the hum anities than G regory X II
est membrum uri quam iste universum corpus, neque Socrates tarn sponte venenum bibit
quam iste ignem suscepit.’’ (See also below, note 63). The early versions of the Apology had been, and Bruni could be sure the gift would be gratefully received.
and Crito are transcribed with Poggio’s letter in Florence, BNC Naz. II. IX. 148 (Cat. A, T h e dedication, however, shows once again that Bruni had more serious
no. 92) and Venice, Correr 314 (Cat. A, no. 370), written by Felice Feliciano in 1467. motives as well for dedicating the dialogue to J o h n . T h e Gorgias contains
18 From Bruni's argument to the second redaction of the Crito, in Berti, p. 205: “ Sed
praesertim in ea parte admirabilis est in qua de officio civis erga patriam disserit.’’ There at the end one of P la to ’s great myths of the afterlife, which, Bruni
survives in two manuscripts (Cat. A. nos. 128 and 192) another argument (Text 12) which thought, showed the h a rm o n y of Plato’s doctrine with Christianity. T h e
was probably composed by Bruni for the earlier version of the Crito; there are some verbal enemies of the humanities were still strongly represented at the papal
parallels with the argument edited by Berti, such as “ ... ita postea de caritate erga patriam
et fide diligenter accurateque disseruit’’, which may be compared with the passage edited
by Berti just quoted. Bruni imitated the Speech of the Laws at the end of his own De militia. 30 See below, p. 72. That they are not mentioned in Bruni’s surviving correspondence
40 Berti, p. 25f. That Bruni did not dedicate them is not in itself a sign that the works from the period is perhaps voulu, as Bruni carefully edited his Epistolano, removing
were not published, since Bruni frequently published works without dedications. If the references to anything he felt might be discreditable; see L. Gualdo Rosa, “ La struttura
anonymous argument to the Crito is by Bruni (previous note), that would suggest that he dell’epistolario bruniano e il suo significato politico,” forthcoming in the acts of the con­
did indeed plan publication ot the works. If the works were done during the years 1406/09. ference Leonardo Brunt cancelhere della Repubblica dt Firenze.
is I argue in App. 2. it may be that Bruni thought it impolitic to draw attention to his 31 See Mortensen (cited in App. 1). If the dating in App. 2 is correct, then the Gorgias
interests in Creek philosophy in the curia of Gregory XII. who had little tolerance for is one of Bruni’s first projects after completion of the Dialogi.
pagan letters: indeed, one ol the pope's chief counselors was the old enemv of the 52 See App. 2.
humanities in Horcncc. Giovanni Domenici. whom Gregory created cardinal. ’:i See App. 2.
54 PART I FL O R E N C E 55

court (Salutati’s old critic, G iovanni Dominici, was now a cardinal) and tain an appearance of strict moral virtue in his own life. In the Gorgias,
Bruni evidently believed that circulating a version of the Gorgias there however, Socrates denounces the art of rhetoric in the most violent terms,
could lend force to the hum anist argum ent that the study of pagan letters calling it a “ mere knack” (epureipioc tk;), a form of flattery, useful only to
strengthened rather than harm ed belief: the m a n who meditates injustice; he compares it sneeringly to cookery,
cosmetics, and sophistry; he argues that rhetorical culture is deeply in­
Some people will perhaps be surprised that I am giving to you, the prince
of Christians and the supreme pontiff of the orthodox faith, a book by a pa­ compatible with the life of philosophy. T h e attitude of Socrates’ main op­
gan philosopher, though a most excellent one. But when they have studied ponent, Callicles, should have been equally difficult to assimilate. He
the book itself, they will put aside their surprise. Plato has the quality, appears as the mouthpiece of hedonism and a radical moral skepticism,
although it appears more clearly in other works of his—he has the quality but also as the proponent of the active life of the citizen, who attacks
in all his works of writing and believing things which appear conformable
Socrates for playing adolescent dialectical games while not even knowing
with our faith. For the creation of the world by the one true God, rewards
and punishments of the pious and impious after death, and other matters how to cast his vote in the Assembly. N ear the end of the dialogue Socrates
our faith most correctly teaches, Plato himself asserts and proves in such undertakes to prove that the famous heroes of A thenian democracy,
fashion as to seem imbued with our teachings. In moral matters his doctrine Themistocles, Cim on, Miltiades, and Pericles, were'not heroes at all, but
is so complete and salutary that often when I read his books, I almost panderers who brought about the moral decay of Athens.
believe I am listening to Peter and Paul handing down the precepts of life.54
It is difficult from the scanty evidence to judge precisely what Bruni
Years later, in dedicating his translation of the Politics to Eugene IV, m ade of these attacks. It is unlikely that Bruni discovered in them that
Bruni was to make the same point about the prefigurations of Christian “ tragic choice between two opposed ways of life” which a modern
morality in the Gorgias: scholar such as E. R. Dodds found.56 Bruni would have approached the
dialogue through Cicero, Q uintilian, and Aulus Gellius, all of whom (as
Socrates, according to Plato in the book called the Gorgias, shows that it is
worse to inflict than to suffer an injury. And he presses the argument to the themselves the products of a rhetorical culture) were inclined to soften its
point of saying that he has proved by the severest logic that it is far worse contrasts. In C icero’s De oratore, Plato is m ade out to be not so much an
to inflict than to suffer an injury. In the same book Socrates teaches that opponent of rhetoric simpliciter as an opponent of the enlarged Isocratean
if someone does us an injury, we should not seek vengeance. What kind of ideal of a culture of eloquence. Cicero observes with satisfaction (as fre­
teachings, by God, are these? Are they not divine, are they not very similar
quently in his other works) that Plato, for all his opposition to rhetoric
to Christian perfection?55
culture, was himself the most eloquent of men; the suggestion is clear that
Yet useful as the Gorgias proved in the defense of the hum anities, it also one cannot, quite, take Socrates au pied de la lettre. From Q uintilian Bruni
contained m uch that Bruni and his friends should have found deeply could have heard what became the standard hum anistic explanation of
disappointing and distasteful. Bruni throughout his life was concerned to Socrates’ attitude: that Socrates had m eant to condem n only bad
dem onstrate the usefulness of hum a n e studies to the C h u rc h and to civil rhetoric, not good.57 Aulus Gellius provided a suitably moralizing
society. H e looked upon the knowledge of antiquity and classical elo­ reading of Callicles’ attack on philosophy. U sing Q u in tilia n ’s facile
quence as instrum ents of social and cultural reform, and tried to main- technique, he distinguishes between “ that philosophy which is the
teacher of all virtues” governing cities with courage and wisdom, and
54 Bertalot, 2:269: “ Quodsi aliqui fortasse mirabuntur me tibi Christianorum principi that “ other kind of philosophy” devoted to “ futile and childish attention
et orthodoxe fidei supremo antistiti librum philosophi etsi excellentissimi attamen gentilis to trifles” . Callicles, Gellius says, was attacking only the latter sort of
obtulisse, hi cum librum ipsum perlegerint, omnem omnino admirationem deponent.
Habet enim hoc Plato, quamquam in aliis eius operibus clarius id apparet, sed tamen
philosopher.58 In short, B r u n i’s ancient authorities could only have en­
hoc habet in omnibus ut ea semper scribat et sentiat que fidei nostre consentanea uidean-
tur. Nam et de creatione mundi a vero et summo deo et de piorum impiorumque post
mortem premiis penisque et aliis que fides nostra rectissime tradit, Plato ipse sic asseuerat 56 Plato, Gorgias, ed. E. R. Dodds (Oxford, 1959), p. 31.
et probat, ut nostris disciplinis imbutus uideatur. In moralibus uero talis est eius doctrina 57 Inst. 11.15.24f. The passage comes in a part of the Institutes which was known to the
tamque salubris et integra, ut libros eius sepe dum lego, Petrum et Paulum precepta uite Florentine humanists even before Poggios discovery in 1416 of the full text; see Texts and
tradentes me audire existimem.” Transmission: ,4 Survey of the Latin Classics, ed. L. D. Reynolds (Oxford, 1983), pp.
13 Tr. Gordon Griffiths in The Humanism of Leonardo Brum, p. 158; based on Schriften, 332-334.
pp. 70-73. The reference is to Grg. 469B. In the Escorial copy (see below) Bruni has 58 Noct. Att. X.22.1-2, 24. For Gellius’ influence in the Renaissance see Baron (1968),
drawn in the margin a hand pointing to the passage (f. 11 r). pp. 196-215.
56 PART I FLORENCE 57

couraged that tendency of'hum anist “ d oc trina l” reading to soften radical and the accuracy of the translation itself assure us that, even if Bruni
conflicts and to find in each and every passage some moral lesson. m odulated the sharp tone of the dialogue, he still could not have
Closer study of B ru n i’s translation suggests that he probably did read misunderstood the gist of Socrates’ and Callicles’ arguments.
the dialogue in this more pious way. T o be sure, his translation, apart T h e second observation is that neither Niccoli nor Bruni seems to be
from one instance of bowdlerized homosexuality, is on the whole c o m ­ seeking that “ direct contact with a great h u m a n experience” which
plete and accurate. T here is, however, a persistent tendency, probably Eugenio G a rin attributes to early readers of P la to.62 W hat they seem
unconscious, to mute the sardonic rudeness of Callicles’ and Socrates’ rather to be doing is labelling passages in the text for insertion into their
exchanges into something more pleasantly ironical. In one key passage, copybooks, for later recycling in their own literary productions. We have
a starkly Nietzschean quotation from P in d a r is turned into an innocuous already quoted one example of just such a copybook illustration; the
platitude.59 Bruni translates ep.7iet.pia (a “ k nack” , Socrates’ pejorative quotation corresponds to a note Bruni m ade in the Escorial manuscript
definition of rhetoric) as pentia, a word which has more com plim entary (f. l l r ) at Grg. 469B. Bruni used another illustration from the dialogue
overtones, m eaning som ething like “ expertise” . T h e re is also B ru n i’s as early as 1405 in his Laudatio in funere Othoms adulescentis, a passage also
statement in the preface to John X X I I I , describing the dialogue as “ a m arked by Niccoli in the m a r g in .63 O ther notes are clearly intended for
very pleasant and m em orable dispute held between Socrates, Gorgias, the same purpose. Neither annotator seems to care m uch who the in­
Callicles and Polus” — a passage which recalls C ic e ro ’s description of the terlocutor is in the dialogue. Plato depicts Gorgias as something of an ass
dialogue as Socrates’ “ mockery of the o ra to rs” .60 All of which suggests and a windbag, but next to several of G o rg ia s’ pronouncem ents on
that Bruni read a more jocular tone into the bitter quarrels of the rhetoric (later to be mocked by Socrates) Bruni adds reverently “ Note
dialogue. the utility of this a r t ” , “ Note this as an (moral) example [exemplum\". In
But the best evidence for B ru n i’s reading of the Gorgias is found in the one place, Socrates argues that rhetoric is even useless in a court of law,
dedication copy of the translation which has a few notabilia in his hand since o n e ’s soul is injured if one does not receive deserved punishment.
and in that of Niccoli.61 These permit us to look over the shoulder, as it Bruni, as we have seen, interprets this as proxim ate to the Christian
were, of the first two Renaissance readers of the dialogue. T h e notes are teaching that it is better to suffer than to do evil. Socrates goes on, how­
unfortunately very sparse, but we can at least make two observations. ever, to generate the paradox that one should hope that o n e ’s enemy does
T he first is that both Bruni and Niccoli noted carefully all the passages use rhetoric, gets off scot-free, and so does injury to his soul. Bruni feels
in which Socrates attacks most forcefully the value and epistemic status obliged to explain this un-C hristian attitude in a note: “ All these words
of rhetoric (Niccoli a dding in the m argin, “ [he says] rhetoric is not an are inferred by natural re a so n ” .
a r t ” , and “ rhetoric is a kind of expertise” ). T hey also noted particularly B r u n i’s translation, preface, annotations, and his uses of the dialogue
the passages where Callicles is at his most Nietzschean, arguing that suggest, in sum, that he did not see the Gorgias as a d ra m a pitting against
morality is a social product and that cleverer m en seek power and each other the irreconcilable claims of rhetoric and philosophy; a d ra m a
pleasure uninhibited by the moral prejudices of the mob. These notes which sought to convert its readers to a different way of life. Instead, it
was an entertainm ent, com m unicating “ useful teachings” in a pleasant
See App. 3B. Accame Lanzillotta (note 25, above), pp. 90-91, also notes a tendency and m em orable fo rm .64*
“ ad attenuare il vigore del discorso greco” by making Demosthenes less of an extremist T h o u g h this way of reading the dialogue surely did much to remove
in his De corona. obstacles to its reception by the early humanists, one cannot but suppose
"0 Bertalot, 2:269: "Hie autem liber disputationem continet iocundissimam ac
memorabilem habitam a Socrate cum Gorgia Leontino itemque cum Callicle et Polo.” that Bruni sensed at some level the gulf that separated his own outlook
Cp. De oral. 1.11.47: “ Quo in libro [Gorgia] in hoc maxime admirabar Platonem, quod from that of P la to ’s Socrates. T h a t at least is what the later history of
mihi in oratoribus irridendis ipse esse orator summus videbatur.” See also the title of B ru n i’s relations with Plato suggests. For Bruni did not return to Plato
Bruni's translation in the Bergamo MS (Cat. A, no. 4), "De irridendis oratoribus” . In
his later period, when Bruni had become an Aristotelian with strong reservations about again for over a dozen years, and when he did, it was as a declared
Plato, he suggested that Plato’s method of disputation was too frivolous for pedagogic
purposes: see below, p. 65f. A similar reading of Socrates as engaging in gentle pedagogic
irony and mockery is found in Ficino (see below, p. 3261.) and in Melanchthon 1,2 "Platone nel Quattrocento italiano,” in Garin (1969), p. 274.
(Tigerstcdt. p. 33). M See App. 2.
1,1 See App. 2. ,'4 Compare mv remarks on Guarino’s reading ot the Republic in Hankins (1987b).
58 PART I FLORENCE 59

Aristotelian with strong reservations about P lato’s “ usefulness” . T here public with any writing of his own. As an im m igrant and outsider, Bruni
are signs, indeed, that Bruni was starting to be seriously attracted to was a firm upholder of the status quo and traditional G uelf pieties; the
Aristotle as early as 1413.65 W as it the reading of the Gorgias that turned aristocratic Niccoli, however, had long adopted a superior attitude
Bruni from Plato, as it was to turn George of T rebizond some twenty towards vulgar opinion and had openly supported the party of King
vears later? Ladislaus of Naples in 1414 against J o h n X X I I I and the propapal faction
in Florence.
Even worse, Niccoli had come under the influence of the Camaldolese
2. Plato as Civic Humanist
monk, A mbrogio T raversari. Bruni, after ten years in the papal curia,
In 1415 B runi’s employer. Pope J o h n X X I I I , was deposed by the C o u n ­ had acquired a fixed contempt for monks and friars, whom he (like Pog-
cil of Constance, and Bruni, who had m anaged to escape the town by gio) saw as hypocrites m asking their ambition with a pious and humble
night, made his way to Florence. After ten years of w andering in the ser­ m anner. H e had seen G iovanni Dominici abandon the cause of church
vice of the papal curia, he was ready to settle perm anently in his favorite unity, bribed by G regory X II with a bishopric.66 In T raversari he
city. T hree years before he had m arried a young Florentine girl of good thought he recognized a m em ber of the same tribe. Moreover, T r a v e r ­
family, and thanks to his loyal service to J o h n X X I I I he had been able sari, like Dominici, was critical of the new enthusiasm for pagan authors.
to amass a considerable fortune. Living on his income in Florence soon H e had, to be sure, more tincture of the new studies than Dominici,
became even easier for him, thanks to a tax exemption secured for him being a competent Hellenist and a passable Latin stylist, but he had
by Cosimo d e ’Medici in 1416, in recognition of his services to literature. subordinated his literary acquirements to the task of restoring the piety
And the tax exemption accompanied an aw ard of Florentine citizenship, and learning of Christian antiquity. Like St. Augustine, he valued pagan
which Bruni may have valued even more, as offering certain legal protec­ literature only insofar as it directly subserved Christian ends. Traver-
tions. In short, Bruni now had the financial security to achieve his life­ sari’s translations of the G reek Fathers were specially designed to rein­
long desire of living in Florence as a gentlem an scholar like his adm ired force the credit of monasticism and to nourish the contemplative life. His
friends Niccolo Niccoli, Palla Strozzi, and Lorenzo d e ’ Medici. H e had only translation of secular literature, a version of Diogenes L aertius’
formed an ambitious program of philosophical translation whose center- Lives o f the Philosophers, he translated under protest, as an act of friendship
pieces were to be new humanistic versions of Aristotle’s moral philosophy for Niccoli and Cosimo d e ’Medici, but complained sanctimoniously
and a collection of Platonic dialogues. H e also began work on his massive about the distraction from his real interest in “ sacred things” .67 T r a v e r ­
History of the Florentine People in twelve books, the first great m o n u m e n t of sari was also a rival of Bruni for the favor of Cosimo d e ’Medici, whose
humanist historiography, whose first book appeared in 1416. Bruni was political im portance continued to grow throughout the 1420s.
to enjoy his literary retirem ent for twelve years, until called once more B ru n i’s hostility to T raversari broke out into open warfare two years
by the Republic to the post of chancellor. after his return to Florence. In 1417 he published an invective against
If Bruni had hoped for unalloyed happiness, however, he was soon to him, modelled on the newly discovered In Pisonem of Cicero, accusing
be disappointed. O n e of the great attractions of Florence for Bruni T ra v e rsa ri (without nam in g him) of the same behavior with which Christ
during his early period was always the patronage and literary advice of reproached the Pharisees.68*T ra v e rsa ri’s first translation, a rendering of
his great friend Niccoli. But time had altered their relationship. In the
decade before 1415, Bruni had become financially independent and no b6 See G. Griffiths in The Humanism of Leonardo Brum , pp. 322-3, 327.
67 Traversari, Epistolae, col. 369: “ Ego mi Nicolae, si in hoc munere cuiquam
longer needed Niccoli’s patronage. Indeed, he was well on the way to hominum cedam, nemini libentius cedam quam tibi et Cosmo nostro. Quodque semel
becoming one of the richest m en in Florence, while Niccoli had long been illi pollicitus sum. facere omni studio intendo. Verum habenda ratio temporis. Faciam
declining into poverty. Bruni had also acquired an international literary quod cupitis, sed sinite, quaeso; praestoler reditum vestrum. Vides quam incertus sit
humanae conditionis status atque fragilis vita nostra et morti quotidie obnoxia. Patere,
reputation, while Niccoli had not deigned or dared to come before the quaeso, me hoc praesertim tempore sacras haurire litcras sacrisque vacare rebus quibus
a puero me ipsum devovi.” He makes similar remarks in letters to Francesco Barbara
and Leonardo Giustinian (ibid., cols. 306, 308, 310).
The earliest sign of Bruni s attraction to Aristotle comes in his epistolary description M On the historv of the quarrel with Traversari, see L. Gualdo Rosa, “ Leonardo
ol the Florentine constitution of 14115, edited and discussed by Baron in Humanistic and Bruni, VOratio in hypoentas e i suoi difficili rapporti con Ambrogio Traversari,” in 4m-
I’olituat Literature, pp. 173-184. hro^io Traversari Camatdolese net VI cenlenano della nascita (Cainalcloii, 1987), pp. 89-111.
60 PART I FLORENCE 61

St. Basil’s second letter (significantly entitled “ Adversus vituperantes began to quarrel openly with Niccoli, writing his famous invective, the
vitae m onasticae” ) was almost certainly conceived as a reply to this a t­ Oratio in nehulonem maledicum. T h e center of B r u n i’s attack in this oration
tack, and was probably designed to recall B ru n i’s own first translation, was Niccoli’s scandalous behavior with his “ housekeeper” Benvenuta—
of Basil’s letter Ad adolescentes, in which the study of pagan literature was or “ M a lv e n u ta ” , as Bruni called her. T h e assault m ay also have been
praised.69 T raversari also responded to B r u n i’s attack by a cam paign of an indirect attack on T raversari, who apparently found it possible to
denigration against his translations. In this he was aided by his Greek tolerate Niccoli’s behavior. In any case, we m ust imagine the period of
amanuensis, Dem etrius Skaranos, who criticized philosophical mistakes B r u n i’s literary retirem ent as one of continual backbiting, vituperation,
in Bruni's version of the Ethics. T his in turn drew a sharp reply from and character assassination— an atmosphere which visiting literary men
Bruni in a letter, and in due course led him to compose his treatise, from found distinctly unpleasant, as the examples of G u a rin o , Barbaro and
which we have already quoted, De recta interpretation.10 Filelfo prove. T h e atm osphere, as we shall see, also had a marked impact
T hough the breach with Niccoli m ay have had deeper roots, it took on B r u n i’s projects for translating Plato, and m ay even help to explain
longer to manifest itself.71 It was not until the 1420s, it seems, that Bruni the rapid im provem ents in translation technique he made after 1417.

For its date. 1417. see A. Sottili. “ Ambrogio Traversari, Francesco Pizolpasso, T h e same period of literary retirement also saw the emergence of B runi’s
Giovanni Aurispa: traduzioni e letture.” Romanische Forschungen 78 (1966): 47; it is m a tu re attitudes, the attitudes that made him the leader of Florentine
significant that Traversari requested a Greek manuscript of the letter from Leonardo
h u m a n ism and a pioneer in the new secular consciousness of the Renais­
Giustinian almost immediately after Bruni had published his invective.
7(1 On Skaranos. see the prosopographical sketch in G. T. Dennis, The Letters of Manuel sance. O nce freed from the loud confusion of doctrine and claims to
II Paleologus. Gorpus fontium historiae bvzantinae, no. 8 (Washington, D .C ., 1977), pp. authority, from the unedifying spectacle of clerical am bition that marked
Ivii-lx. Mehus in his Histona litterana Florentina (1769: repr. eel. E. Kessler, Munich,
the final years of the schism, Bruni seems to have developed, or perhaps
1968), p. 465. argues that Traversari must have learned his Greek from Skaranos rather
than from his. Skaranos’, friend and relative Chrvsoloras. But while Skaranos surelv ad­ revealed, an extraordinarily advanced secularism. T h e re appear in his
vised Traversari on linguistic problems after 1416, there is no reason why the latter could writings attitudes to morality and the afterlife which, though expressed
not have learned Greek from Chrvsoloras, as Vespasiano da Bisticci claimed (Vile, cd.
in a classicizing mode, could only be described by orthodox Christians
Greco. 1:450). Mehus. who is followed by A. Dini-Traversari (Arnhrogio Traversari e i suoi
tempi [Florence. 1912], pp. 28-31), A. Sottili (“ Griechische Kirchenvaeter im System der as a kind of secular Pelagianism. Nowhere is the role of grace or the intel­
humanistischen Ethik." in Ethik im Hurnanismus. ed. W. Ruegg and D. Wuttke [Bop- lectual auth ji'ity of the C h u rc h recognized. Everywhere one senses a sup­
pard, 1970], pp. 66-67) and C. L. Stinger ( Humanism and the Church Fathers: Ambrogio
pressed impatience with what the E nlightenm ent was later to refer to as
Traversari f 1386-I439J and Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance [Albany, 1977], pp.
19-20), doubted Vespasiano’s report, arguing that since Chrvsoloras left the city at the clerical “ tutelage” .72*O f course Bruni does not reject C hristianity—such
end of 1399. and Traversari only became an oblate in S. Maria degli Angeli in October an attitude would be almost inconceivable in the early fifteenth
ot 1400, that he could not have learned his Greek from the famous teacher. But
cen tu ry — nor does he adopt any radical “ P ro te sta n t” hostility to the no­
Chrvsoloras may have been in Florence again in 1407/8 (see next note) and was certainly
there for a number of months in 1413 in the seguito of John XXIII (see R. Sabbadini. tion of an ecclesiastical polity as such. H is anticlericalism rather takes
"L’ultimo ventennio della vita di Manuele Chrvsolora,” Giornaie ligustico 17 (1890): two forms. O n the one hand he m aintains strongly that true goodness is
321-836 at 330-331). and he could well have given vital help to Traversari in the midst
an internal state of the soul, not an outw ard conformity with forms of
of his attempts to learn the language autodidacticallv. On the other hand, the date of 1406
for Skaranos' oblation to S. Maria degli Angeli is clearly a mistake for 1416 (see the two
conflicting documents dated 1406 and 1416 cited by Stinger, ibid.), since Skaranos still between Niccoli and Bruni’s revered teacher, since in a letter of 17 December 1407
held the office of imperial treasurer as late as the summer of 1414, and in 1406 was sailing (Luiso 11.18) informing Niccoli of Chrvsoloras’ return to Italy, Bruni begs him, “ Si
around the Eastern Mediterranean as financial agent to John Laskaris Kalopheros (Den­ [Chrvsoloras] per Florentiam iter faciet, censeo illi per te benigne occurrendum, omissis
nis. cit.). We have furthermore a letter of Bartolomeo da Montepulciano to Traversari causis indignationis, quae cum leves sunt turn etiam ineptae." The most judicious and best-
(Traversari, Epistolae. col. 981, undated by Luiso) which shows that Manuel and Am- informed account of the controversy is now M. C. Davies, “ An Emperor Without
brogio were well acquainted. Since Chrvsoloras (who credits Traversari in this letter with Clothes? Niccolo Niccoli Under Attack,” in Maistor. Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance
a knowledge of Greek) died in 1415, and Skaranos did not arrive in Florence until 1416, Studies for Robert Browning, ed. A. Moffatt (Canberra, 1984), pp. 269-308, now reprinted
Travel-sari clearly began his study ot Greek some time before Skaranos’ arrival. Several with additions in I M U 30 (1987):45-148.
of 1 raversari s letters (ibid., col. 278. 279-280) also suggest that Manuel and he were 72 Bruni, however, was more careful to conceal his anticlericalism than was Poggio.
more than easuallv acquainted. See, for instance, the letter he wrote to Poggio in response to the latter’s sympathetic ac­
1 In his invective In nehulonem matcdicurn Bruni charged Niccoli with having been count (above, note 47) of the trial of the Hussite heretic Jerome of Prague; Bruni obvious­
responsible for Chrvsoloras’ departure from Florence m 1400. This is usually dismissed ly had an idem sentire with Poggio, but advised him ( Ep. IV.9 [IV.9]) to watch his step:
as a pure invention, and it is no doubt exaggerated, but there was evidently some animus “ Ego cautius de hisce rebus scribendum puto.”
62 PART I FLORENCE 63

behavior popularly recognized as pious. O n the other hand he tries valuable because they produced a competition of praise which led to solid
vigorously to m ark off within C hristian territory some sovereign dom ain benefits for the community. O n the other hand the life of scholarly retire­
whefe humanist culture could dwell free from the more extreme dem ands m ent, the vita contemplatwa, was only valuable when it produced a literary
of monastic and m endicant philistines to subordinate all cultural life to harvest to benefit the com m on good.75
the task of preparing the soul for its final de stination.73 It will be evident that the most im portant source of these ideas was the
W ithin this sovereign dom ain the chief values Bruni recognized were moral philosophy of Aristotle, although the ground had doubtless long
derived from the temporal purposes of individuals, households and been prepared by B ru n i’s reading of Cicero. In Aristotle Bruni found an
states. Hence there arose what H a n s Baron and others have described as acceptance of worldly values as well as rational, non-religious criteria for
B ru n i’s “ civic h u m a n is m ’’. Bruni, like most immigrants, had always forming ethical judgm ents. No doubt he found refreshing Aristotle’s cool
been more Florentine than the Florentines, and he had early discovered empiricism after the dogmatic heat and windy prophecies of the conciliar
the knack (later to become a staple activity of humanists) of bedecking period. In any case he soon avowed himself a follower of Aristotle,76 and
his adopted city with garlands of classical rhetoric. U n d e r the influence devoted great efforts to popularizing his philosophy, not only in Latin,
of Salutati he had come to perceive the utility of ancient eloquence and but also in Ita lia n.77
ancient wisdom. Yet it was only in his later period that he found solid C a n one say, then, that Bruni “ converted’’ in his m ature period from
substitutes in classical antiquity for the inherited values of medieval Platonism to Aristotelianism? Certainly it would be correct to say Bruni
Christendom. T he intellectual authorities of the medieval world had (at became a Peripatetic, but one could say that he had been a Platonist only
least officially) made beatitude in the next life the goal of this one, had if a a very peculiar m eaning is attached to the word “ Platonism ” . T he
regarded secular authority as a regrettable concession to h u m a n sin­ truth is that Bruni never showed any genuine grasp of even the central
fulness, and had declared m arriage, wealth, comfort, and reputation to doctrines of Platonic thought, and that his reading of Plato had no discer­
be obstacles to the spiritual progress of the soul. Bruni, however, with the nible influence on his own m ature outlook. T h e apparently Platonic
aid of his classical reading, had e m ba rke d upon a complete revaluation strains in B ru n i’s interpretation of Aristotle noted by some scholars have
of secular activities. T h e tem poral happiness of the individual was to be their source in his uncritical use of the platonizing Byzantine com m en­
the highest end of hum anist culture; full happiness required not only tators Eustratius and Michael of Ephesus rather than in any reading of
“ goods of the soul’’, but also corporeal goods such as health and “ exter­ ancient Ne_.platonists or Plato himself.78 T h e rare references to Plato in
nal goods’’ like money and re p u ta tio n .74 Family life was necessary to B r u n i’s later correspondence and once in the treatise On Knighthood are
produce wealth, and wealth was needed not only for individual h a p ­ all plainly copybook illustrations rather than deep marks left by Platonic
piness, but for the good of the state. T h e state existed by nature as influence. In B ru n i’s Isagoge of Moral Philosophy, which contains a con­
necessary to the well-being of its citizens; to serve the state was therefore ciliate between the major philosophical schools of antiquity, Socrates and
meritorious and deserving of praise. R epublican institutions were Plato are not even m entioned, though this may be so because Bruni, like
Cicero (on whose Definibus the Isagoge is partly based), did not distinguish
strongly between the Peripatetics and the Academics. Still, a receptive
73 The most important texts here are Bruni’s treatise De studiis et Uteris (ed. Schriften, pp.
5-19) and his letters to Tommaso Cambiatore (E p . V.2 [V.2]), Lauro Quirini (Ep. IX .2 reading of Plato’s dialogues should surely have furnished him with the
[IX .2] and especially the remarkable letter to Nicola di Vieri de’ Medici (Ep. VI. 12 materials to separate more subtly Platonic from Aristotelian doctrine. In
[VI.8], tr. Hankins in The Humanism oj Leonardo Bruni, pp. 337-339) which shows very his Canzone morale, Bruni can only describe the doctrine of “ Socrate e
clearly the theological implications of humanist moral thought. See also my introductory
remarks on the letter to Quirini, translated in The Humanism o f Leonardo Brum, pp. 264-267.
Bruni’s attitude to “ outward observance” in his Oratio in hypocntas is discussed by L. 75 See the passages of the Cicero novus edited in Schriften, pp. 113-120.
Gualdo Rosa (note 68 above). The same attitude to outward observance was apparently 76 See my discussion, “ Bruni and Aristotle,” in The Humanism of Leonardo Brum, pp.
held by Niccoli: see the letter of Traversari in which he commends Niccoli for his serious 259-262.
study of the Bible and the Christian religion, but beseeches him not to neglect his Easter 77 See his Canzone morale (ed. Schriften, pp. 149-154), a metrical version in the ver­
duties, as he had apparently done for some years past (G. Mercati, Ultimi conlnbuti alia nacular of his Isagogue of Moral Philosophy. In popularizing Aristotle’s moral philosophy
\tona de^h umamsti. I: Traversanana, Studi e Testi 90 [Vatican City, 1939], pp. 46-47). Bruni was following a Trecento tradition; see for example Book VI of Brunetto Latini’s
71 See Bruni's Isagogicon moralis disciplinae (ed. Schriften, pp. 20-41), which was based Tesoretto (probablv composed bv a follower of Latini) which was a compendium chiefly
on Cicero's Defintbus and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. It is translated in The Humanism from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics as well as other sources of moral philosophy.
oj Leonardo Brum, pp. 267-282. 78 See my remarks in The Humanism oj Leonardo Brum, pp. 203, 371, 380, 387.
64 PART I FLORENCE 65

Platone e lor famiglia’’ in vague and inaccurate terms draw n more from eloquence well-nigh superhuman. But his.doctrines were occasionally such
Cicero than from the dialogues. as to depend for their acceptance upon the assent of a well-disposed mind
It would be wrong, then, to suppose that Bruni was at any time a rather than upon necessary proofs. Much of what he taught about the
nature of the soul and its transmigration and descent into bodies was more
" P la to n ist” in some meaningful sense, but there is no doubt that his a t­ akin to revelation than to demonstration. In establishing his ideal state he
titude to Plato grew visibly more negative sometime after his reading of expressed some opinions utterly abhorrent to our customs and ways of liv­
the Gorgias. This will cause little surprise after what has been said of the ing. He believed, for instance, that all wives should be held in common—
character of B rum 's m ature thought. T h e Phaedo's depiction of the body one can hardly imagine why—with the result that no one could tell his own
as prison of the soul, the Gorgias’ radical critique (by Socrates as well as children from those of a perfect stranger. He would do away with the laws
of inheritance and have all things held in common. Aristotle opposed these
Callicles) of rhetorical culture and conventional social behavior, would and similar notions, and it was when he hit upon plausible counter­
have been of small use in B ru n i’s attem pted revaluation of civic life. It arguments to them that he began to find followers, even though Plato was
is also possible that B ru n i’s loyalty to Plato was affected by his break with still alive. Plato’s doctrine was, moreover, inconsistent and unclear.
Niccoli, who continued to adm ire the G reek philosopher. Traversari, Socrates wandered to and fro wherever he was led with no order to his
too, actively promoted the more Platonizing G reek Fathers such as Basil, teaching, and did whatever he pleased. In disputation he seems not so much
to be giving his own views as to be refuting the views and statements of
Gregory of Nvssa, O rigen, and Dionysius the Areopagite, whom he saw
others. Aristotle, on the other hand, was both more cautious in his teaching
as authorities for the value of monastic contemplation, and it might be (he never commenced a subject unless he could offer proof), and more
imagined that this contributed to the change in B ru n i’s attitude towards moderate in his opinions. As a result, he gave support to normal usages and
Plato. T hat, however, would require us to suppose that Bruni interpreted ways of life, instead of imagining strange, abhorrent, and unprofitable
Plato neoplatonically, or rather recognized the Platonic roots of Greek ones. His explication of these subjects was very careful and serious, so that,
whether he was teaching logic, natural science, or ethics, his teaching was
patristic writers. In fact, what Bruni says about Plato in his m ature perfectly connected, and the body of knowledge being treated was
period suggests that he had adopted an Academic skeptical interpretation developed from the first elements to the last details. He was like a loving
of him, draw n from Cicero and perhaps from A u g u stin e ’s Contra father who not only desires to beget sons, but educates them throughout
Academicos. As Bruni wrote in a passage of his Life of Aristotle, composed boyhood and adolescence, and does not leave off until by a continuous exer­
in 1429: tion of his love he has transformed them into men. This coherence and love
was lacking in Plato’s teaching, either because he did not think himself
When Plato was still alive, Aristotle had already begun to disagree with him obliged to provide it, or because he did not wish to do so, or because he
about many things, and even then, it is plain, there were those who fol­ had contempt for minutiae and elementary education. For this reason, his
lowed Aristotle. It is not, however, to be thought that there was any dissen­ books are more suitable for men who are already ripe and finished scholars;
sion or disagreement between the philosophers in their general tendency.79 tender wits will not be able to find sufficient instruction in them. But to
The Old Academy and the Peripatetics, who both derive their teaching Aristotle the human race is deeply indebted, because he deigned to collect
from Plato and Socrates, seem to have the same doctrine, and to hold the in one body, as it were, the several disciplines which had before him been
same views about virtue and conduct, good and evil, the nature of the variously dispersed. The man who wishes to learn should embrace him,
universe, and the immortality of the soul. About this kind of thing, and in because from the way his books are written it is evident that he wished to
general tendency of thought, there was no disagreement; but in small instruct the young, nourish those of middle ability, and give exercise and
details and in matters of middling importance it is clear that there were polish to the mature. He undertook, indeed, to guide and direct our entire
sometimes disagreements and opposition. Plato was, to be sure, an excep­ life.80
tional man, who possessed a great variety and range of knowledge, and an
T his passage is indeed our best evidence for why B runi turned against
79 The emphasis on conciliatio here as in the Isagoge may be a response to criticism by Plato (which m ay perhaps serve as some excuse for quo tin g it at length).
Traversari (who was then engaged in translating the Lives of Diogenes Laertius) about Bruni has come a long way from the gush and enthusiasm of his early
the conflicting opinions of the pagan philosophers. In his preface to Cosimo de’Medici
(see MS Laur. Strozzi 64, f. XIv) Traversari, using a patristic topos, had emphasized the letter to Niccoli, from the bright hope that a Latin Plato would bring
disagreements of the philosophers, and said how their exhausting battles should send us
for relief to the truth of Christianity. Similar remarks had been made by Giovanni 80 Translation by Hankins in The Humanism of Leonardo Brum , pp. 288-289, based on
Dorninici ( Lucula noctis, ed. Coulon, p. 180), who argued that the differences between the the text in Schri/len, pp. 44-6, collated with the text of Ingemar Duering, Aristotle in the
pagan philosophers undermined their credit. The use of this commonplace by opponents Biographical Tradition, Studia Graeco-latina Goteburgensia, no. 5 (Goeteborg, 1957), pp.
ol the humanities may help explain why the humanists were in general so insistent on 173-75. Here, as in the Canzone morale, Bruni gives no indication that he recognized a
theme of philosophical concord. “ Socratic problem” in interpreting the dialogues.
66 PART I FLORENCE 67

wisdom anew to benighted C hristendom . From the vantage of his m ature from this that B ru n o ’s old affection for Plato had somehow been revived.
outlook B runi seems to have regarded the dialogues as confusing, His m ature interest in Plato no longer proceeds from the naive expecta­
perhaps even a bit frivolous. T h e eloquence and knowledge so praised tion that P la to ’s eloquent wisdom would automatically vindicate
before are still adm itted to be great. But the complaints about incon­ humanistic studies by dem onstrating the proximity of ancient philosophy
sistency, disorder, the lack of clear dem onstrations, and the strange and to Christianity. R ather, his use of Plato in the 1420s is eclectic, even ex­
useless political doctrines of the Republic all bespeak a m ind that is disap­ ploitative: P la to ’s (and Socrates’) authority is used to reinforce a set of
pointed, annoyed, and frankly baffled. Bruni, like T o lk ie n ’s hobbits, secular values fundamentally inconsistent with those of medieval C h ris­
evidently preferred “ books Filled with things he already knew, set out fair tian society.
and square with no contradictions.’’ H e possessed neither the motive nor T his new tendency in B ru n i’s use of Plato can already be seen in his
the exegetical techniques needed to make sense of P la to ’s writings. T he new version of a part of the Phaedrus in 1424. A letter of Ambrogio
doctrinal and imitative forms of reading he practiced did not perm it him T raversari of D ecem ber 1423 tells us that Bruni was working on the
the convenient forms of escape from the littera which would be available dialogue, and was thinking also of translating the Apology, another letter
to Ficino later in the century. It is plain, in fact, that the only way Bruni of the same in J a n u a r y of 1424 (n.s.) reports that the version was still u n ­
saw to protect Plato’s reputation from the carping of critics was the route published. Finally at the end of M arch T raversari writes cattily to Niccoli
of selection, bowdlerization, and suppression. As he wrote to his friend (who was visiting Rome):
Niccolo C eva in 1441, when refusing to make the new translation of the Leonardo Aretino has translated a certain part of the Phaedrus and has
Republic C eva had requested, “ T h e re are m any things in those books dedicated the mutilated volume to Antonio Loschi. I sawr the fragment, for
repugnant to our customs; things which, for the sake of P la to ’s honor, he brought it round to me himself; I confess I’d prefer not to have seen him.
it would be preferable to rem ain silent about than to publicize.’’81 This latest translation of his does have a large fan-club, of which he is the
head. For my part I daren’t confess what I think of it. Make sure you see
* * * it. I ’ve no doubt he’s shown his exemplar to our Cosimo [de’Medici], and
he’s also taken steps to have it conveyed to Venice, so you will tell me open­
T h o u g h Bruni in his m ature period had strong reservations about Plato, ly what you think.83
they were not so strong as to prevent him from publishing some carefully
A few weeks later he wrote Niccoli another letter about the version, a let­
selected and edited portions of the Platonic corpus. Some time before
1427 (probably late 1426) Bruni put together a “ collected ed itio n ’’ of his ter which also reveals T ra v e r s a r i’s fears that Bruni was w inning over the
Plato translations which included the Phaedo (with the preface to Innocent leaders of the Florentine oligarchy to his side:
V II but w ithout the letter to Niccoli included in the earlier edition), the I learn from Cosimo that you have now received the Phaedrus, or rather the
Gorgias (without the preface to J o h n X X I I I and with a new argum ent), deformed fragment of it. Our Lorenzo [de’Medici, brother of Cosimo],
who had begun to grow accustomed to Tullv’s Tusculans, affirms that he saw
fresh versions of the Crito a nd Apology, with new argum ents, a compila­
it and promptly thrust it aside as squalid, rough and crude. I commended
tion from the Phaedrus, with a preface to A ntonio Loschi and an a rg u ­ his judgment as not inconsistent with my own. Be sure to tell me what you
ment, and a translation of the Platonic Letters, with a rg u m e n t and a think—a rational judgment, mind you, putting aside all the rancor of your
dedication to Cosimo d e ’M e d ic i.82 O n e need not, however, conclude private feud. I ’m anxious to know whether I ’ve gone blind or not. I ’ve now
learned he intends to offer that History of his as a gift to our civic leaders.
I should Find it painful to admit his shallowness and ambition, had I not
81 Ep. IX .5 (IX .4): “ Equidem libros illos iampridem latinos facere aggressus essem,
si michi placerent. Sed multa sunt in iis libris abhorrentia a moribus nostris, quae pro
honore Platonis tacere satius est, quam proferre.” which survives in dozens of nearly identical copies, many of Florentine provenance, and
82 See App. 2 lor examples of'the “ collected edition’’. A Florentine bookseller, proba­ must represent the work of an editor or bookseller.
bly Vespasiano da Bisticci, added to one manuscript (Cat. A, no. 339) Bruni’s 83 Traversari, Epistolae, col. 370: “ Leonardus Arretinus Phaedri partem quandam
paraphrase of the “ speech of Alcibiades” from the Symposium which Bruni had included transtulit librumque truncum Antonio Lusco dedicavit. Vidi fragmentum Ulud; nam ad
in a letter to Cosimo de’Medici (see below, p. 80), but it is clear from the MS tradition nos ipse pertulit; mallemque, fateor, ipsum non uidissc. Habet haec sua extrema traduc-
that the circulation of this “ translation” was almost entirely through codices of Bruni’s tio magnos buccinatores, atque imprimis se ipsum. Ego quid de ilia sentiam, fateri non
letters (from which no. 108 is probably excerpted). Two parallel examples of Bruni pro­ audeo. Curabis ut perferatur ad te. Nam non ambigo quin Cosmo nostro eius exemplar
ducing a collected edition of his translations from a single author are his Corpus dederit, quod Venetias ipse quoque perferri curavit, mihique libere quid sentias inde
Demoslhenicurn (see App. 2) and the collection of his translations from Plutarch’s Lives, significabis.
 68 PART I FLORENCE 69

long since decided for myself that I must spurn all things of this sort with Bruni obviously found m uch of the Phaedrus' contents embarrassing,
magnaminity” ,8+ and the dialogue was frankly (though he would hardly have admitted it)
T raversari seems to have draw n blood, for in his preface to Loschi (who beyond his powers as a translator. W hy then had he chosen to translate
was in Florence at the time with the papal court) Bruni begins by praising it? In his preface Bruni says that he wanted to feed Loschi’s taste for the
his own labors of translation— not out of any insolence or boastfulness on poetical (Loschi being known for his poetry), which suggests Bruni may
his own part (he says), but because “ it would be very m uch less than my have been issuing a challenge to conservative opponents of pagan poetry.
due if when I have finished my long nights of labor for the c om m on good, T h e parts of the dialogue Bruni translated show Socrates engaged in an
some reader should then be so fastidious as to be unable to bear the mere oratorical contest with Lysias, discussing points of rhetoric with
mention of them. ” 85 Bruni went on to complain of the envious, frivolous, Phaedrus, expounding the four types of m adness (m antic, Dionysiac,
arrogant and m alignant persons who might criticise his indicium in poetic, and erotic), relating in what he calls “ poetical language’’ the
making the translation. famous com parison of the soul to a chariot and horses, dem onstrating the
It is easy to see why the version should have been controversial. T he soul’s immortality, and telling another of the great myths of reward and
dialogue itself pious conservatives like T raversari would have found p u nishm ent in the afterlife. T his choice of passages and the careful tailor­
frivolous even if in B runi's bowdlerized Latin version it was no longer ing of the dialogue’s morals and theology to suit the prejudices of his a u ­
openly immoral. W hat sort of contribution to Christian edification was dience reinforce the impression that Bruni was again, this time in a
an oratorical dispute about the kind of lover a young boy should seek conscious and rather ruthless way, exploiting the high fame of Plato and
out? W hy should a C hristian translate into Latin pagan myths about the Socrates to defend poetry and the studia humanitatis against its detractors.
transmigration of souls? Even the m ore liberal part of B r u n i’s audience T h r o u g h the Phaedrus Bruni could have m ade the point that the benefits
was not likely to have been better pleased. In his anxiety to bowdlerize all but the most philistine agreed were retrievable from ancient literature
Bruni so mutilated the text that the sense was often difficult to follow. He were inseparable from the reading of poetry, for Socrates in the dialogue
resorted in several places to paraphrase in order to patch over his exci­ explicitly states that his tale of rewards and punishm e nts in the afterlife
sions, and at the end tacked on two clumsy summaries of unrelated was “ poetical’’. A nd the pagan belief in rewards and punishm ents was
passages before e nding with a p a ra g ra p h taken from the middle of the widely agreed to be am o n g the most “ useful” features of pagan literature
dialogue. T h e final portion of the dialogue, containing Socrates’ account for reinforcing Christian morals.
of true and false rhetoric, is wholly passed over, w hether because of its T h a t this was indeed one motivation for his version of the Phaedrus is
difficulty or from lack of affinity with B ru n i’s own views on rhetoric it also very strongly suggested by a passage of his educational tract De
is difficult to sav.86 studiis et Uteris, written in the same year as his Phaedrus version. In that
work Bruni speaks out in defense of poetry against a clerical critic, who
is probably to be identified with T raversari:

34 Ibid., col. 372: "A Cosmo nostro didici te iam Phaedrum vel Phaedri deforme I have, I realize, gone on about poetry rather more than I had at first in­
tragmentum accepisse. Laurcntius [de’Medici, not Giustinian, as the context makes tended; once started, it is more difficult to control the multitude of ideas
clear] noster eum se, quum Ciceronis Tusculanis sese adsuelacere cepisset, vidisse eum- that seem to come thronging round of their own accord than to mind what
que protinus ut incultuin asperum ac rudem abiecisse testatus cst. Cuius ego iudicio max- it is one should be saying. But I was the more inclined to do so as I am
ime gratulatus sum, quod a mea item sententia non abhorret. Tu mihi quid inde sentias aware that a prince of your house [Carlo Malatesta], if he should happen
signiticare curabis; iudice tamen ratione, omnique privatae simultatis rancore omisso. to hear of this discourse of mine, will be the first to object to it. ... I want
Aveo enim scire an meum caecutiat iudicium. Quod Historiam illam primoribus civitatis no quarrel with him ... but I am perfectly willing to ask of a certain other
dono otferre statuerit, iam didici. Moleste eiusce levitatem ambitionemque admitterem, person among those who attack the poets why it is we should not read them.
nisi apud me iampridem constituissem magno a me animo huiusmodi omnia calcari
oportere. ”
33 Schnften, p. 127: “ Et simul perindignum foret, si cum ipse facta, idest labores et
vigilias pro communi utilitate pertulerim, lector postea usque adeo delicatus sit, ut ne souls grow the wings of love, a difficult passage full of erotic imagery); 257C 4-279C (the
verba quidem commcmorationernquc illorum aequo animo perferat.” discussion of true and false rhetoric). 253C-256E is only summarized, with the eroticism
1 he major omissions are: 230K-234 (the speech of Lysias): 238E-241 (the second removed, and a brief, loose rendering of 265A-B is inserted before the passage at 257 A-C
part o 1 Socrates' speech in reply to Lysias): 242E 5-243A 2 and 243C 2-244A 4 4, which is used as the ending. A number of single sentences and phrases are also omitted
iiclerences to homosexuality which Bruni bridges over bv paraphrase); 250E-253C (how throughout the dialogue, usually in an effort to bowdlerize.
70 PART I FLORENCE 71

Having no clear case against them, he charges the poets with containing amazed at the extreme violence of our senses, and, as though besides
tales ol love affairs and unnatural vice. But I would dare affirm that in no ourselves, we are drawn to it with every passion. So it is no less truly than
other writers can be found so many examples of womanly modesty and elegantly said that the soul of the lover spends its life in another body. This
goodness ... ' ‘I would be pure,” says my austere critic; “ I would rather violent seizing and capture of the mind is called Love, a kind ol divine
abandon the good in fear of the evil than run the risk of evil in the hope alienation and forgetfulness of self, a transferral into that whose beauty we
of something good; hence I may neither read the poets myself nor allow that admire. If you call this madness and insanity, I would wholly agree, so long
others should do so.” But Plato and Aristotle studied them [as Bruni had as you understand that no poet can be any good who is not seized by a
now demonstrated with the help of his Phaedrus version], and I refuse to “ madness” of this sort, nor can God be well and perfectly worshipped, ex­
allow that they yield to you either in moral seriousness or in practical cept through this kind of mental alienation.91
understanding. “ I am a Christian,” my critic says; “ their mores are not
mine.” As though honor and moral seriousness were something different B ru n i’s attraction to the theme of divine eros led him to one of his rare
then from what they are now!87 effusions of vernacular verse, the Carmen in laude di Venere, which was
probably intended to popularize some themes of the Phaedrus, as the
Bruni then goes on to adm it that there are a few passages in pagan
Carmen morale popularized his Isagogicon moralis disciplinae.92
authors which are not wholly edifying b u t these can be passed over or
eliminated— a procedure which describes exactly what he himself does Chi amor crede biasimare, il loda
quando insano e furente in suo dir chiama
with the scenes of homosexual rom ance depicted in the Phaedrus.88 Bruni
colui che fervente ama;
does not entirely exclude allegory from available techniques of doctrinal perche divin furore e ben perfetto.
reading, but it is clear that, unlike Ficino later in the century, he did not La Sibilla non mai il vero isnoda,
find allegorization a possible or plausible solution for dealing with this se non quand’ e furente, matta e grama;
unhappy blemish upon the Platonic dialogues.89 e la divina trama
cerne il commosso, e non il sano petto;
Although it does not occur to Bruni, as it would later to Ficino, to
e gli vaticinanti ch’ an predetto
justify homosexual passages in the dialogues as allegories for “ Platonic furenti vider. Sicche non e rio
love” , Bruni was clearly fascinated by the Phaedrus’ depiction of poetry il furor che da Dio
and hu m a n love as species of divine possession. T h e notion of the divine discende nella mente. E cost amore
origin of h u m a n love helped ease the conscience of secularly m inded p e r­ da Vener nasce, ed e divin furore.93*
sons made anxious by popular preachers who declared h u m a n loves to Ffence Bruni became the first of m any Q uattrocento and Cinquecento
be nothing but obstacles to divine love; such, at any rate, was one reason poets to link the works of Plato with the themes of the traditional trattati
for the appeal of “ Platonic love” later in the century a m o n g the followers
of Ficino. T h a t this was part of its appeal for Bruni is shown by a letter
he wrote to the poet M a rra sio Siculo a few years later. After quoting the prophetic, Dionysiac, poetic, and erotic.” On Marrasio Siculo see G. Resta, “ Per un
edizione critica dei carmi di Giovanni Marrasio,” Rinascimento 5 (1954): 261-289. _
Phaedrus’ analysis of divine possession,90 Bruni writes, 91 Ibid.: “ Nunc autem illud ostendendum est, has furoris species, de quibus supra dix-
imus, non esse malas. ... Poetarum ergo furor a Musis est, amantium vero a Venere.
Now however it must be shown that these four kins of madness are not
Oritur autem hie ex verae pulchritudinis contemplatione, cuius etfigiem visu intuentes
eveil. ... The madness of lovers is from Venus, and arises from the con­ acerrimo ac violentissimo sensuum nostrorum stupentes, ac velut extra nos positi totis
templation of true Beauty, whose image we gaze at with penetrating sight, affectibus in ilium corripimur, ut non minus vere quam eleganter dictum sit, amantis
animam in alieno corpore vitam ducere. Haec igitur vehemens occupatio animi atque
correptio amor vocatur, divina quaedam alienatio ac velut sui ipsius oblivio et in id, cuius
87 My translation in The Humanism o f Leonardo Brunt, pp. 249-250. Bruni also uses the pulcritudinem admiramur, transfusio. Quern si furorem ac vesaniam appellas, concedam
Phaedrus in his letter to Demetrius Skaranos and in the De recta interpretation to illustrate equidem atque fatebor, dummodo intelligas, neque poetam bonum esse ullum posse, nisi
his contention that ancient philosophers took a serious interest in polite letters. huiuscemodi furore correptum, neque perfecte atque eximie Deum coli, nisi per
38 See App. 3C. huiuscemodi mentis alienationem.”
8'’ Bruni mocks the use ol allegory in the De militia (ed. Bavley, pp. 380-381), while 92 It is undated, but I suppose it to be from about this time because of the similarity
arguing in the De studiis (Schnften , p. 17) that morally questionable passages in the pagan in content to the themes of the Phaedrus. Many manuscripts have the subtitle (omitted
authors have no ill effect as they may be taken “ fictionally and allegorically” . bv Baron) “ secondo l’opinione di Platone” ; see for example Parma, Pal. 245 (/ter 2: 35),
Ep. VI. 1 [VI. 1]: ‘‘For, as we know from Plato, there are two species of madness: Florence, BNC Naz. II.X.57 and II.IV.250; Peseta, Bibl. Capitolare Scaff. XXIII,
one flowing from human diseases—an evil and detestable thing of course— ; the other Palch. VI, op. 11, no. 11 {Iter 2: 68).
from a divine alienation of the mind. Again, of the divine madness there are four species: Schnften, p. 156.
72 PART I FL O R E N C E 73

d'amore.'H T h ro u g h the Phaedrus he was also able to put P la to ’s authority W e know little about the circumstances which gave rise to B runi’s
behind the doetrine of the divine inspiration of poets, a doctrine which second translations of the Apology and Crito, but it is possible that the ap­
T recento advocates of pagan poetry had usually avoided as “ attributing pearance of the Apology in late 1424 is not unconnected with another
too much to the Gentiles” . In the same letter to M arrasio Siculo already episode in B r u n i’s career where he ran up against opposition from
quoted, Bruni distinguishes vulgar versifying from true divine poetry, T raversari. In a late letter (1441) Bruni m ade use of Socrates’ authority,
which flows from a kind of divinus afflatus. cited from the Apology (22D), as a way of pu n c tu rin g the pretensions of
Poets also only turn out to be good when seized by madness. Which is why artists who claimed that knowledge of their craft gave them a kind of
they are called vales, because they have been seized with a certain madness. universal wisdom:
The mqn who approaches the gates of poesy without being seized by the
The artist who acquires a kind of perfection in his art, as Apelles did in
Muses, as Plato writes, is a fool; poetry written with (merely] practical in­
painting or Praxiteles in sculpture, does not necessarily have exact
telligence disappears long before inspired poetry.'15
knowledge of military science or government, or a grasp of natural science.
T he influence of B ru n i’s lucubrations on the divine frenzy upon the Indeed, as Socrates teaches in the A pology , this is a common vice in artisans,
that, as each one excells in his own art, he comes to deceive himself into
young Marsilio Ficino has been amply dem onstrated elsewhere.96
thinking he is knowledgeable about other branches of knowledge about
Socrates was not merely useful as a defender of pagan poetry and which he knows nothing.99
hum an love. In his argum ent to the Apology Bruni carefully depicts him
as a m artyr of philosophy, condem ned by “ the ignorant m ultitude, that Bruni, we know, was hostile to the growing d em ands of Florentine artists
is to say, Athens under a popular c o nstitution.” 97 Bruni, though the to be recognized as learned authorities in their own right, preferring to
historian of the Florentine people and later the official spokesman for the regard them as mere m echanics.100 But in 1424 he would have had special
com m une, was in fact a firm supporter of the oligarchy and had a horror reason to arm himself with Socrates’ authority in this m atter, for in that
of real popular governm ent; Florence’s constitution he rightly regarded year he was engaged in controversy with Niccoli and T raversari regard­
as (in Aristotelian terms) a “ mixed polity” rather than a dem ocracy.98 ing the program for G h ib e rti’s second set of doors for the Florentine Bap­
Socrates’ defense of his philosophy before the mob would thus resonate tistry. A n u m b e r of learned men had been consulted, a m ong whom were
with his own situation and that of his hum anist friends, who were like­ Bruni and Niccoli, but B ru n i’s program had won the day with the board
wise accused of snobbishness, impiety, and undem ocratic pretensions to set up by the C alam ala guild (the patrons of the project). T he favor
intellectual superiority. shown to B r u n i’s (rather dull) program drew sarcastic comment from
T raversari; “ I know what you think” , he wrote to Niccoli, “ regarding
the historiae to be sculpted on that third portal, and I agree; but I ’m afraid
those in charge are acting precipitately. I hear th e y ’ve consulted Leonar­
94 For the history of the traltato d'amore and its relationship with the Platonic tradition,
see L. Tonelli, L ’amore nella poesia e net pensiero del nnascimento (Florence, 1933); B. Nardi,
do Aretino, and I can conjecture the rest from this distinguished begin­
Dante e la cultura medievale, 2nd edn. (Bari, 1949); J. C. Nelson, The Renaissance Theory of n i n g .” 101 In his proposal Bruni had advised that he be given authority
Luce (New York, 1958). None of these books deals with Bruni’s contribution. Bruni also
defends romantic love at the end of his novella, the Stona di Seleuco, ed. G. Papanti, Novella
di Leonardo Bruni Arelino (Livorno, 1870). 99 Ep. IX .3 [IX .2]: “ Artifex enim quandam perfectionem et habitum in arte sua con-
95 Ep. VI. 1 [VI. 1]: “ Poetae quoque tunc demum boni existunt, cum suo illo corri- secutus, ut Apelles in pictura, Praxiteles in statuis, non necesse habet rei militaris aut
piuntur furore. Qua de causa vates eos nuncupamus, quasi furore quodam correptos. gubernandae reipublicae scientiam habere aut naturae rerum cognitionem. Immo, ut
Qui vero absque furore Musarum poeticas ad fores, ut inquit Plato, accedit, sperans Socrates in Apologia docet, hoc est commune vicium in artificibus, quod ut quisque in arte
quasi arte quadam poetam se bonum evasurum, inanis ipse, atque eius poesis, prae ilia sua excellit, ita sese decipit putans in aliis quoque facultatibus se scire quae nescit.”
quae ex furore est, haec quae ex prudentia disperditur. ” 100 See Holmes, Florentine Enlightenment, p. 234f. Bruni would have some strained rela­
See A. Buck, Italiemsche Dichtungslehren vorn Mittelalter bis zum Ausgang der Renaissance tions in the 1440s with Leon Battista Alberti, one of the leading proponents of the new
( Tuebingen, 1952), pp. 88-91; R. Cardini, La critica di Landino (Florence, 1973), pp. knowledge-claims of the artists (see Ep. IX. 11 [IX. 10], and Luiso, p. 155), and during
100-103; and S. Gentile (1983), passim. the war with Lucca in the early 1430s would describe Brunelleschi’s plans for diverting
17 Text 11. lines 3-4. For the date (around 1424) see App. 2. the Arno and Hooding that city as “ idiocy” (see The Humanism of Leonardo Brum , p. 153).
IH See his Tce.pl cfj<; xcav pXcopev-ctvcov 7toXtxeia<;, now edited with a useful commentary bv 101 Traversari, Epistulae, col. 373: “ Quid de historiis tertiae illi portae insculpendis
A. Moulakis, “ Leonardo Bruni’s Constitution of Florence,’’ Rinascimento, ser. 2, 26 sentias video, proboque; sed vereor ne nimium praecipites sint hi quibus ea opera iniunc-
(1986): 141-190; and Bruni’s history of the Ciompi revolt in Book IX of his Histonae ta est. Audio illos Leonardum Arretinum consuluis.se, praeclaroque ex hoc initio cetera
hlorentmi pnpuli, ed. h. Santini, RIS XIX, pt. iii (Citta di Gastello, 1914), pp. 223-226. conjecto.
 74 PART I FLORENCE 75

to instruct the designer in the historiae of the program . G hiberti, however, volence to his friends: all are bodied forth in Plato’s actions. And how
evidently resented this superior attitude and ignored B r u n i’s program , useful the letters are as an explication of P la to ’s beliefs! We see his
adopting instead a much better program that showed the influence of carefulness, deference, modesty, his eagerness to enter public life, his
T ra v e rsa ri’s ideas.102 So Socrates’ sententia about the pretended know ­ conscientiousness, forethought, and sense. I have derived more benefit
ledge but actual ignorance of artisans would surely have struck a chord from these few letters, writes Bruni, than from whole tomes: the latter,
with B ru n i’s own feelings in late 1424.103* books of mere doctrine, seem shadowy and dead in comparison with the
living and breathing example of virtue I see in these letters. How can I
B ru n i’s second version of the Cnto was probably done into Latin hesitate to do an act I see Plato has done?
sometime between the spring of 1424 and J u n e of 1427. T h ro u g h it Bruni
So, Cosimo, I ask you to read and reread these letters, committing each
would have dem onstrated that Socrates, however unjustly treated by the sententia to memory, especially those which give advice about the state. You'll
mob, still held sacred the laws of the state. In a letter of 1428 (V.8), Bruni understand what I mean if you read through them all carefully and well.
depicted his own decision to return to the office of chancellor, despite his I ’m not writing this because I mistrust your intelligence or willingness, but
greater inclination towards literary retirem ent, as an act of obedience to because I think your objective needs the strengthening and confirmation of a
great m an’s authority. Farewell, and show me, not by words, but by
the will of the patria, and com pared it with Socrates’ decision, recorded
reading and by actions, that my gift was not given in vain."14
in the Crito, to die in prison rather than mock his c o u n try ’s laws by illegal
flight. It is not recorded w hether C osim o d e ’ Medici reflected on this T h e ending of this preface is curiously specific. W hat was C osim o’s
dialogue before his escape from the palazzo della Signona in 1433. propositum which required the guidance of P la to ’s words? Clearly it had
to do with some m atter of state. W as Bruni trying to do something more
In his translation of the Letters, however, which was dedicated to Cosimo
in 1427, Bruni took especial care that the powerful banker should not 104 Schnften , p. 136: “ Traductio autem harum epistolarutn ita vehementer mihi iucun-
overlook the lessons of antiquity. It was always the hope and am bition da fuit, ut cum Platone ipso loqui eumque intueri coram viderer, quod eo magis in his
of hum anist educators and m en of letters to reform society by steeping accidit mihi quam in ceteris illius libris. quia hie neque fictus est sermo nec alteri at-
tributus, sed procul ab ironia atque figmento in re seria actionem exigente ab illo summo
its leaders in the moral thought of the ancient writers, and by bringing ac sapientissimo homine perscriptus. Saepe enim praestantes viri, doctrinam vivendi ali­
them to identify themselves with the virtuous lives of ancient statesmen. quant proseeuti. muita praecipiunt aliis. quae ipsi, dum agunt, praestare non possunt;
T his intention is plain to see in B ru n i’s prefatory epistle to Cosimo. After ex quo fit, ut aliter loquantur, aliter vivant. Platonem ego in his epistolis non praeci-
pientem aliis, sed ipsum agentem perspicio. Cerno integritatem hominis incorruptam,
a brief admonitio showing why wisdom is superior to riches (a passage iibertatem animi, fidei sanctitatem; inter haec prudentiam eximiam, iustitiam singula-
which may be presumed also to have had its point), Bruni comes to his rem, constantiam vero non protervam neque inhumanam, sed quae et consuii sibi et
reasons for translating the Letters. W h a t I enjoyed particularly (he writes) suaderi permittat, in amicos vero tantam bemvolentiam, ut commoda sua propria il-
lorum commodis posthabere videatur. Ad haec autem, dii boni, quae consiliorum
was the opportunity to speak with Plato, as it were, face to face. In his suorum explicatio! quae circumspectio! quae observatio! quae modestia! Iam vero de
other works his views are hidden u n d e r the fictional and ironic disguises adeunda re publica quae appetitio! quae ratio! quae consideratio! quae religio! Fateor in
of the dialogue form, but in these letters we see him in a real situation his magnum et absolutum quemdam virum bonum mihi ad imitandum proponi. Imita-
tiones vero nunnumquam efficatiores sunt quam doctrinae, ut in oratoribus et
dem anding action. And though other great men are unable to follow histrionibus intueri licet, quorum artes difficilius quidam addiscunt, facilius imitantur.
their own teachings, look at the way Plato behaves! U n c o rru p t integrity, Ego certe plus utilitatis lectione harum paucarum epistolarum percepisse me intelligo.
intellectual freedom, holy faith, prudence, justice, constancy, bene­ quam ex multis voluminibus antea perlectis. Ita mihi viva haec quodammodo et spiran-
tia, ilia vero inter mortua et umbratilia videbantur. Qua enim in re agenda mihi am-
biguitas esse queat, in qua videam Platonem ita fecisse?
102 For the details, see R. Krautheimer, Lorenzo Ghiberti, 2nd edn. (Princeton, 1970), Tu igitur has epistolas multum lege, quaeso, ac singuias earum sententias memoriae
pp. 161-162. 169-187. commenda, praecipue vero quae de re publica monent. Intelliges vero quid dicam, si
103 Bruni’s rendering of the relevant passage in his second version is as follows (Vat. cuncta diligenter triteque perlegeris. Nec eo ista scribo, quod tuae aut intelligentiae aut
lat. .'5348, (. 7()r): “ Dcmum vero me ad artifices contuli, putans hos plurima [xat xaXa voluntati diffidam, sed quod propositum tuum auctoritate summi viri confirmandum et
urn. | scire, quorum me esse nescium intelligebam. Ft in hac parte, iudices, nequaquam corroborandum censeo. Vale, et munus hoc meum non tarn verbis quam lectione
lallebar. Nam et sciebant multa quae ipse nescio, et me in hoc sapientiores erant. Verurn operibusque tibi non frustra collatum ostendas.”
in eo mihi errare visi sunt, quod, quemadmodum de poetis supra dixi, ita et artifices A parallel passage in Bruni’s Rerum suo tempore gestarurn comrnenlnnus (ed. Di Pierro. p.
bom. quia artem suarn bene norant. quisque eorum putabat in aliis quoque maxirnis 423) shows that Bruni valued the Platonic Letters as a historical source, or rather as a “ still
rebus sese esse sapientem.” living and breathing picture of those times".
76 PART I FLORENCE / /

with his translation than simply provide Cosimo with general moral for­ ondly, to giving advice to the party of Dionysius’ uncle Dion (a follower
mation? It is known that Bruni on other occasions tried to use his scholar­ of Plato), which party had come to power after overthrow ing the tyrant.
ly works to teach specific political lessons. A round 1418, perceiving Plato explains how he overcame his natural reluctance to serve a tyrant:
similarities between R om e after the First Punic W ar and Florence after he had hoped that he might be able to convert him into a philosopher-king
her conquest of Pisa, he confected from Polybius his De primo bello punico along the lines of the Republic, he also wanted to avoid the charge that he
in part to get the Florentines to think about the responsibilities of empire; was a mere theoretician. This line of thought gave Plato the opportunity
later, as chancellor, he used the same work to argue that there was no to say a n u m b e r of things to delight a h u m a n ist’s soul: the advantage of
injustice in the popular decision to make war on Lucca, even though it joining power with wisdom; how only philosophy could teach justice; that
was contrary to the wiser policy of the Senate (and to his own views), rulers can only have the support of their peoples by virtuous living; the
since in a republic the people must be sovereign. T h e Commentary on superiority of mental culture to all other goods, and so on. His advice to
[Xenophon's] Hellenica was similarly intended to teach his fellow citizens the party of Dion was moderate and specific: first, they should reject
the importance of having wise men in governmental councils, and to tyranny and establish freedom within a constitutional system under a tri­
argue against policies of w a r . 105 W as B runi's translation of the Letters for ple kingship and nomophylakes (a mixed constitution after the Spartan
Cosimo similarly ad rem? model); too m uch liberty and too much central power were alike harmful.
T he work was certainly not without relevance to c ontem porary events [Lvcurgus-] people [the Spartans] have been gloriously preserved through
in Florence. In the late 1420s the political situation was particularly these many generations because law was made rightful lord and sovereign
unsettled and volatile. T h e governing oligarchy, led by the Albizzi fac­ of men, and men no longer ruled the laws with arbitrary power. It is my
tion, had been weakened by dissension and failure; w ar with M ilan had advice to everyone to take this same course now. I urge those who are intent
brought on a financial crisis and higher taxes; a new bout of imperialistic on establishing a tyranny to turn back and to ilee for their lives from that
which is accounted happiness by men who are insatiably greedy and bereft
frenzy, this time directed against Lucca, was threatening. T h e star of of sense. ... Either servitude or freedom, when it goes to extremes, is an
Cosimo de' Medici was already on the rise, and those (like Bruni) who utter bane, while either in due measure is altogether a boon. The due
were politically perceptive could perhaps already see w hither the flow of measure of servitude is to serve God. The extreme of servitude is to serve
events was tending. Bruni is usually thought to have been an adherent men. The god of sober men is law; the god of fools is pleasure.10b
of the oligarchic party led by R inaldo degli Albizzi, but in fact the Revolution should at all costs be avoided.
evidence shows he prudently avoided identifying himself with any party,
and remained on good terms with the leaders of both sides. T h e fact of The same policy [to avoid force in reforming others] should also be a rule
of life for the wise man in dealing with his city. If he thinks that the constitu­
his having rem ained unmolested in office from 1427 to 1444, if nothing tion of his city is imperfect, he should say so, unless such action will either
else, indicates his attitude of politic reserve, characteristic of the high- be useless or will lead to his own death, but he must not apply force to his
level civil servant. But Bruni did not hold back when it came to offering fatherland by revolutionary methods. When it is impossible to make the
moral advice in the guise of literary entertainm ent; the need to sweeten constitution perfect except by sentencing men to exile and death, he must
the pill of moral suasion, to join the dulce to the utile, was one of the persis­ refrain from action and pray for the best for himself and his city.1 16007
tent themes of B ru n i’s writings. Cosimo, who in after years would O ligarchy is the most stable form of government:
become the patron of Marsilio Ficino, may have shown already a
Those then who are on any occasion victorious must, if ever they come to
predilection for Plato. W hat better way, then, to turn the younger m a n ’s desire peace and security, of and by themselves select any men [among the
mind into the right path than to make a translation from a favorite Greeks] who, according to their information, are pre-eminent, men who are
author, and present it to Cosimo for his delight and edification? in the first place advanced in years, who possess wives and children at home
W hat advice about the state did Bruni give Cosimo through P la to ’s and can reckon the most and the best and the most famous ancestors, and
mouth? T he largest part of the Letters (of which only Letter VII is possibly who own all of them abundant fortunes.108
genuine) is devoted, first, to defending the actions Plato took while acting
as a political adviser to Dionysius II, the tyrant of Syracuse, and sec- 106 Plato, Ep. 354C-E (tr. L.A. Post).
107 Ibid., 331D (tr. idem).
108 Ibid., 337B. Bruni’s translation omits xtov 'EXXtivcov and changes xxfjatv !xavr|v,
['m- all lliis sec (>. (irilliths ill l tic Humanism at I.conardo Brum, pp. 175-184. suitable property” , to patrimomum possidentes abunde.
78 PART I FLORENCE 79

Finally, Syracuse should aban d o n its imperialistic policies towards the It was not so m uch by the version itself as by the framing of the version
other cities of Sicily and southern Italy, and instead seek an alliance of that Bruni molded his re a d e rs’ perceptions of the Letters. In his argum ent
free states within the region which in the end would be better able to d e ­ to the translation Bruni represents Plato through his teaching as having
fend Greek civilization against the C a rthaginian menace. aroused in Dion a desire for liberty. After the failure to draw the tyrant
into the philosophical life, and after repeated betrayals and broken pro­
The Athenians also brought many cities under their power and held sway
for seventy years because they had made friends for themselves in each of mises, D ion raises up a party of liberty and overthrows the tyrant. After
them. Dionysius, however, having made all of Sicily into one city, met with D io n ’s death, the heirs to his power maintain the Syracusans in liberty;
disaster because in his wisdom he trusted no one.109 Plato advises them to set up a royal power ‘‘as the only wav you may
compose your affairs.” T h u s Plato is m ade the guiding spirit in freeing
In C osim o’s copy, all these passages are emphasized with marginal
Syracuse from the tyrant, and his advice to set up a kingship is rep­
signs, whether made by Cosimo, by Bruni himself, or by some other
resented as a mere stopgap, an extreme remedy for an extreme situation.
hand, it is now impossible to k n o w .110
T h e historical reality the letters themselves present is rather different.
There being little in the Letters to em barrass him, Bruni had no need
In fact, the political lessons Dion learned from Plato du rin g the latter’s
for the drastic measures he had taken with the Phaedrus in order to make
first trip to Sicily were almost certainly the lessons of the Republic about
the Latin version acceptable to his audience. T here are the usual c om ­
the need for philosopher-kings— not about the need for liberty. Plato was
pressions and simplifications, some m isunderstandings, and the same
no dem ocrat, and his main interest in Sicily was the establishment ol wise
philosophical confusions we have noticed before.111 T h e re are some cases
and constitutional governm ent; he feared an excess of liberty (that is, too
where B runi’s anxiety that the correct political sentiment be read into the
large a political class) and only advised it in the case of Syracuse because
text has led him to add explanatory glosses.112 A nd there is a general
of the need for placating the democratic faction a m ong D io n ’s followers
tendency to elevate fairly ordinary rem arks Plato makes into rolling
after his death. H e refused to help Dion in his plan to overthrow the
sententiae. But the only egregious example of Bruni consciously adjusting
tyrant Dionysius II. These subtleties of P lato’s position Bruni chose to
his text to the desired m ea n in g is his omission of the m ention at 337E of
leave in obscurity, and a reader who had not read the Republic might well
P lato’s communistic policy for S yracuse.113
have found it difficult to criticize B ru n i’s account on the basis of the
latinized Lr.iers alone. If we recall that libertas was Florence’s great watch­
109 Ibid., 332B (my trans.): this is the end of a long passage about the foolishness of im­ word in her propaganda wars with the ‘‘ty ra n t” of M ilan (a war Bruni
perialism. For Bruni’s opposition to the Impresa di Lucca, see the chronicle of Paolo Petri-
boni in Florence, BNC Conv. Soppr. C 4, 895, f. 126v.
as chancellor would shortly be called upon to manage), there can be little
110 These marks are in the dedication copy, Laur. LXXVI 57 = Cat. A, no. 75 (see also doubt why Bruni chose to depict P lato’s politics in the way he did. N or
App. 2). The annotator has also marked passages on the vanity of riches and the trials of have we to look far for a motive why the Duke of M ila n ’s secretary, Pier
being rich at 31 7D and 335B, on Plato’s excuses for not being involved in Athenian politics
(322A), on the differences in language used by democracies, oligarchies, and monarchies C andido Decembrio, would later reject the Letters as sp u rio u s.114*
(32IE), on rewards and punishments after death for lives ol civic virtue (335E), on the Bruni himself rejected Letter X I I I as spurious, as well as (it would seem)
dangers of arrogance (32 IB), and a number of other uplifting sententiae. At 333 A the same a passage of Letter I I , 115 and this too may reflect B ru n i’s wish to represent
contemporary hand has written in the margin the word ironia to explain why Plato men­
tions the false rumors that he was plotting against Dionysius. Plato as a cham pion of liberty. For Letter X I I I shows Plato intimately con­
111 See for example the famous passage at 341D f. on the '‘hidden teachings", which con­ cerned in the affairs of the tyrant Dionysius, acting as his buyer, sending
tains many of the same defects that appeared in Bruni’s version of the Phaedo (see App. 3A). and receiving his presents, asking him for money for the dowries of his
112 At 315D, for instance, Plato advises the Syracusans to exchange their tyranny for

a legitimate royal government, ox; otpa aou jxoxe Xiyov-zot; axouaa? syco piXXovxoi; ... xal
daughters. Bruni actually mentions these matters in a passage of his
Eupaxooatoix; s711x0 0 9 taai, xtjv apxrp avxi xuppavISoi; ei? paatXeiav (jtexaaxriaavxa. Bruni argum ent as grounds for rejecting the letter’s authenticity. Such triviality
glosses: ‘‘[Ferunt vero non pauci] ... in animo habuisse te ... Syracusanos relevare, ac pro
tvrannide regiam gubernationem leviorem et honestiorem illis inducere.” At 355E, the Greek
savsonly, xoii; 8 e dpxfl 07Xeo8uvo<; (BaotXtxfi, i.e., ‘‘let the other (rulers exercise] a responsible apud Dionysium ipsum conati pro utilitate publica sumus, que fortuna quaedam poten-
roval government’’: Bruni’s gloss, '‘aliis vero potestas regia tudicus obnoxia", ‘‘a royal tior hominibus impediuit."
power accountable to judicial assemblies," emphasizes the point made elsewhere by Plato 114 See App. 8 D.

that power should be divided in order to prevent tyranny and keep stability. 115 314C 7-315A 5 ol Letter II is omitted without explanation: perhaps Bruni thought

111 Plato: rcpclixa o’rjv a xo 7tpd>xov E 7tExe.t.pTl0 Ti [i£x’ auxoO Atovoatou -paxBTjvat Txaat xoiva the passage in question insufficiently uplifting (one ol his reasons lor rejecting Letter XIII)
ayaBa, xi^x*! 0 i xi? av0 pa)7tci>v xpEtxxwv 8 iE9 0 pTiaEv. Bruni: ‘‘ Nam prima quidem ilia tuere que or perhaps he objected to Plato's advice to Dionysius II to study logic and dialectic.
 80 PART I FLORENCE 81

and ambition, he argues, are certainly ill in keeping with P la to ’s majesty. W e do not know why Bruni chose to send this effusion to Cosimo at
N or is the style in keeping with P la to ’s literary h a b its.116 Rejection of precisely this time (if it was at this time). T h e re are, however, some in­
apocrypha by means of internal and stylistic criteria was a valuable and teresting possibilities. Cosimo, we know, was prone to bouts of piety and
characteristic product of Renaissance philology, and Bruni was one of its had an especially close relationship with T raversari. T h e latter may have
earliest and best exponents, yet in this case B ru n i’s criticism seems to been trying to underm ine P lato’s authority by showing Cosimo privately
have grown from other motives than a disinterested concern for truth. the homosexual poems ascribed to Plato which he had excised from the
But genuine scholarly advances are after all not infrequently the fruit of published version (1433) of his translation of Diogenes L aertius.120
less pure m otives.117 Again, in 1425 the poet Antonio P a norm ita had dedicated to Cosimo his
In his translation of the Letters, then, Bruni has made Plato the notorious Hermaphroditus, in the dedicatory letter of which P la to ’s suppos­
mouthpiece of his political convictions in much the same way as in the ed homosexualism was gleefully cited as an “ a u th o r ity ” for the behavior
Phaedrus Socrates is employed to prom ote B ru n i’s cultural values. And in described in the poems of the collection.121 Pope Eugene IV in the early
dedicating the volume to Cosimo d e 'M edici, Bruni m ay well have seen 1430s threatened readers of the Hermaphroditus with excommunication,
himself as a new Plato, giving the Dion of Florence the benefit of his pro­ and the book was burned by the public h a n g m a n in several cities. B runi’s
found moral wisdom. Speech of Alcibiades may thus have been intended as an answer to those who
Alter his translation of the Letters, Bruni returned but once more to Pla­ charged Plato and Socrates with im morality, or Cosimo d e ’ Medici with
to, in 1435, when he translated the Speech of Alcibiades (215A6-222A6) p a nde ring to low literary tastes.
from the Symposium and sent it in the form of a letter to Cosim o d e ’ M e d i­
c i.118 T he translation is a very curious docum ent. From “ the pleasantest
3. Minor Translators in Florence and the Papal Court
of Plato's books’’, the speech is a virtual laus Platoms in which Alcibiades
confesses the powerful moral influence Socrates held over him, extols his Some chiaroscuro may be added to the picture thus far draw n of the char­
eloquence, chastity, and integrity, and praises his military virtue. It has, acter of the Platonic revival by considering briefly the m inor translators
however, only a very loose relationship with the Greek te x t.119 In B ru n i’s of Plato who were active in Florence or in the papal court; the papal
version, Alcibiades’ account of his attem pted seduction of Socrates is court, as has frequently been pointed out, was largely a cultural satellite
high-handedly converted into a story of how Alcibiades pursued Socrates of Florence in the First half of the fifteenth century.
for his wisdom, and all other references to homosexuality, fluteplaying
and paganism are systematically expunged. G ratuitous moralizing with Cencio de’Rustici (ca. 1390 - ca. 1445) was a younger associate of Bruni
no basis in the Greek text is inserted at various points. in the papal chancery and an im portant m e m b e r of the humanist group
there which included Poggio, Antonio Loschi, Pier Paolo Vergerio, and
"* Schn/ten, pp. 137-8: “ Prima et quinta epistola Dionis est, ccterae vero omnes
Platonis. Est et alia, satis quidem grandis epistola sub Platonis nomine ad Dionisium
scripta. quam ego non transtuli, quoniam certissimum habeo esse adulterinam. Id autem
et ex figura dicendi. quae longe abest a Platonis charactere, et ex rerum ipsarum. quae 120 In his preface to Cosimo (Laur., VIS Strozzi 64, f. X llr) Traversari writes, “ Sane
in ea scribuntur, levitate apparet. Munuscula enim quaedam vini et ficuum missa enar- quoniam versus plurimos et omnis generis turn alienos turn suos auctor interserit quod
rat et petunias pro t'unere matris postulat, frigide sane et inepte, et ab ipso exordio abhorrere videtur a gravitate historiae, illos traducere consulto obmisi. ita tamen ut nihil
levitatem ambitionemque ostendit. Itaque earn reliqui neque cum hac maiestate Platonis deesse ex sensu, necessario sim passus __ Plura quidem inserta sunt parum pudice turn
commiscendam censui.” The letter is regarded by most modern scholars as spurious. dicta turn facta et quae pudorem exagitent, sed ilia quoque non omitti et lex interpretandi
117 It is worth noting also Bruni’s rejection of part of Plutarch’s account of Dion (see et vera suasit ratio.’’ In this manuscript, which was Traversari’s working copy (it has
the argument in Schn/ten , p. 137) on the generally sound (but in this case mistaken) also annotations by Niccoli), the homosexualist poems attributed to Plato are in fact
grounds that Plato’s account in his letter is closer in time to the events described. A fur­ translated (with the marginal note “ Platonis amor’’), but are crossed out, and the poems
ther example of Bruni’s historical criticism with respect to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are omitted in the published version (represented by the dedication copy Laur. LXV, 21,
is his correction ot the common medieval error that Aristotle had studied with Socrates; f. 56v, with the colophon, f. 210r, “ Michael monachus absolvit hoc opus in conventu
see Ep. VI.3 (VI.3|. See also my discussion of Bruni’s historical criticism in the Life of angelorum de Florentia anno domini MCCCCXXXII [i.e., 1433], die vero VIII
Aristotle (in The Humanism of Leonardo Brum , pp. 262-264). Februarii” ). In Ficino’s copy, Laur. LXXXIX, inf. 48, f. 40v. an amanuensis has
118 Ep VII. 1 (VII. 11. For the date (based only on its position in the Epistolano), see evidently collated his text, which omitted the poems, with the Strozzi VIS. lor the poems
Euiso. p. 126. have been added into the margins.
11,1 See App. 3D. 121 See p. 131, below.
82 PART I FLORENCE 83

later Rinuccio Aretino and Flavio B io n d o .122 H e is today best re m e m ­ from those who yield to reason rather than to themselves, and to remove
bered as the com panion of Poggio and Bartolomeo da M ontepulciano on completely that congenital ennui from their minds.12b
their famous trip to St. Gall d u rin g the Council of C onstance when so Such language as this is commonplace in the history of consolatory
m any works of classical authors were discovered. But he was well known literature, and it may be supposed that Cencio like Bruni was engaged
in his own day as a m a n of considerable learning, wealth, and influence in the hum anist project of providing more attractive classical substitutes
in the papal court; like Bruni, he had been a student of Chrysoloras. H e for the horrible visions of death and ju d g m e n t offered up by contem ­
left at his death a small body of work consisting chiefly of translations,
porary preachers. T he pseudo-Platonic Axiochus depicts in rather lovely
but including also two praeludia to a course on rhetoric, an oration, some
G reek prose Socrates’ delivery of a consolatio mortis to the dying Axiochus.
verses, and twenty-eight letters. In an odd and contradictory speech, Socrates tells Axiochus not to fear
C encio’s most successful work was his translation of the pseudo- death because, on the one hand, he will not exist or have sensation after
platonic Axiochus (then still attributed to Plato), which is extant in some death, and because, on the other hand, his soul is im m ortal and, being
thirty-eight manuscripts, one printed e d itio n ,123 and a Spanish ver­ good, shall enjov heavenly delights hereafter. T o this brew of Epicurus
sion.124 T he Latin translation was dedicated to C ardinal G iordano Orsini and Plato is added a charm ing Platonic m yth describing the delights of
(d. 1438), the well-known patron, book-collector, a nd ecclesiastical the afterlife, whose O rphic and N eopvthagorean touches add still more
statesman. T h e translation appears in m a n y m anuscripts together with savor to the draught.
C in c iu s’ letter of transmission to a certain Velleius, otherwise T his was obviously just the thing to appeal to a C hristian patron with
u n k n o w n .125 It seems to have been completed in 1436/7 when Cincius
classicizing tastes, but it would appear from his prefaces that it had an
was with the papal entourage in Bologna. equal appeal to Cencio himself. T o a m ind continually inflamed with fear
Cencio was of a different sort from Bruni. O f a noble R o m a n tamily of death, the doctrine “ confirmed by the authority of this divine m a n ” ,
possessing some independent means, he was reserved, pious, indolent, that for the good death was no evil, was like some cooling lotion.1 127
62 *The
difficult to know; he had a m o rd a n t wit, was inclined to melancholy, and frank Pelagianism of the dialogue seems to have caused him no e m b a r­
had a fear of death and ju d g m e n t. W ith such traits it is not surprising
that a m ong the books at his disposal in Bologna he “ seized avidly” upon
P lato’s dialogue “ O n Scorning D e a t h ,” and decided to translate it. 126 Bertalot, 2:134: “ Cum itaque necessitate nature mors euitari non possit eiusque
metus hominum mentes excruciet, ille Academice iamilie princeps Plato, ut quieto et
Since by the necessity of nature death cannot be avoided, and fear of it tor­ tranquillo animo uiuere ualeamus, quemadmodum cetera diuinitus, ita in hoc sermone
tures the imagination of men, that prince of the Academics, Plato, in order Socratem disputantem tacit eumque persuadentem mortem non solum non timendam,
that we might live with quiet and tranquil mind, represents Socrates here, sed exoptandam esse. Sapientissimi quippe medici munus, ut ab iis qui rationi potius
as elsewhere, disputing in his divine way and convincing [us] that death is quam sibi ipsis consentiunt, quasi diuino quodam pharmaco mortis metum abstergat et
not only not to be feared, but even desired. Surely it is the gift of the wisest huiusmodi languorem mentibus ingenitum funditus amoueat.” In a prolusion to a course
of doctors to wipe away as though with some divine drug the fear of death oflectures on Cicero (Bertalot, 2:466) Cencio quotes Plato's Laws as a prooftext to show
that philosophy is the “ animorum medicina” , then alludes to his own translation oF the
Axiochus (ibid., p. 467): “ At vero Socrates qui Apollinis oraculo sapientissimus iudicatus
est, perversitatem hominum deridet, qui dum mala corporis valitudine implicantur,
122 On Cencio, see A. Wilmanns. “ Cincius Romanus,” in Genethliacon zum Buttmanns- diutius amicos familiaresque consulunt, quern medicum curandi corporis causa sibi ipsis
tag (Berlin, 1889), pp. 65-82; M. Lehnerdt, “ Cencio und Agapito de’ Rustici,” Zeitschrift potissimum eligunt, cum vero animum egrotum habent, aut eius saiutem negligunt aut
fuer vergteichende Literaturgeschichte, n.s., 14 (1901): 147-72, 289-318; Bertalot, 2:131-180 temere ad quemvis hominem sanandi animi gratia prolisciscuntur.
("Cincius Romanus und seine Briete” ); and P. O. Kristeller (1985), pp. 239-258. 127 Bertalot, 2:134: “ Sed nescio quonam modo, cum animus egritudine pene continua
i-3 Twentv-five manuscripts were previously listed by Bertalot and Kristeller; lor the estuet et presertim mortis metu, ad eum curandum sanandumque remedia minime
rest of the MSS and the printed edition see Cats. A and B. The printed edition is proba­ querantur. Subicimur enim omni uel temporis puncto mortis periculo usque adeo, ut ii
bly based on Riccardianus 766 or a close relative since it alone to my knowledge preserves etiam qui etate llorent et uiribus prestant et moderata quadam natura uigentes sunt, non-
the incorrect spelling "Cincen Romanum” and the rubrics are identical. Some ol the numquam in ipso quasi felicitatis cursu ut flores excisi cadant et euolato spiritu corpus
printer Morelius’ books are also preserved in the Riccardiana Library according to the terrestre relinquant. ... Tibi itaque, reuerendissime pater et benigmssime domine. qui
introduction to the catalogue of Morpurgho. pro tua singulari prudentia lidei et ecclesie detrimento atque dedecori mortem semper
See below, p. 97. anteponendam esse duxisti, hunc Platonis sermonem his proximis noctibus Bononie a me
For the prefaces, see Texts 22 and 23. Gains Velleius was the name ol the romanum effcctum potissimum dedico. ut huius diuini hominis auctoritate contirmatus
F.picurean interim utor in Cicero's De natura deorurn, so the name may be a mask tor one sine ulla dubitatione mortem in tnalis minime ponendam esse iudices. Cencio then goes
ol Cincius s better-known contemporaries. on to praise Plato's eloquence.
84 PART I FL O R E N C E 85

rassment (as it hardly would have in that period), nor its polytheism, tion of P la to ’s epistem ology.131 In an- undated letter to a certain
but he did evidently feel obliged to Christianize in one place: where in “ D om inus J u lia n u s ” (probably Cardinal G iuliano Cesarini) Cencio re­
the Greek Socrates expresses the hopeful generality that the pious will jects the view, which had evidently been put forward in a letter of
be happy in the next life, in the Latin we find substituted the doctrine Julianus, that Plato’s analogy between the life of individuals and the life
of rewards and p u n ish m e n ts.128 of states (in Republic V II) licenses one to suppose that states cannot be
C encio’s other Platonic translation was his version of the De virtute, reborn. Cincius, using R om e as his example, argues that states can be
probably completed in 1436 or 1437 in Bologna, at the same time he reborn through h u m a n efforts, though the resurrection of individual men
was translating the Axiochusf29 it was dedicated to Bornio da Sala (d. requires divine grace. Therefore P lato’s analogy is not wholly a p t .132
1469), a professor of law at the University of Bologna who was an active W hat chiefly attracted Cencio to Plato seems then to have been his reli­
participant in the activities of T uscan and L om bard h u m a n is m .130 T he gious thought, especially his views on immortality, but not so much for its
dialogue (a digest of parts of the Meno, probably intended originally for ability to “ confirm the true faith” and defend the humanities, as in
schoolboys) addresses the question w hether virtue comes by nature or B ru n i’s case, as for its provision of a cooler and more classical form of piety
by education and concludes that it comes from neither, but is a gift of than that offered by contem porary Christianity. T h e re is no sign of genu­
divine providence. T h e Christianizing substitution of Deus for 9eoi has ine interest in Plato’s moral and political thought, or in his metaphysics.
been noted by Kristeller.
Cencio twice mentions Plato in his surviving letters; in neither case O f the life of Rinuccio Aretino, or better, Rinuccio da Castiglionfiorentino,
is any profound understanding of Plato revealed. In a letter to Jo h a n n e s little is known, though his works have received some attention from
C anutius, written at the time of the council of Constance, he uses the scholars interested in the fortuna of Aesop and A risto p h a n e s.133 He was
early Platonic doctrine that a hu m a n being is essentially a soul to give
elegant variety to his line of thought, reminiscent of J o h n D onne, that 131 Bertalot, 2:149: ” Verum si de hominis natura Plato recte existimat, qui hominis
though Jo h a n n e s and he were physically separated they were never­ dumtaxat animum hominem esse asseuerat, nullus quoque temporis atomus est, quin
theless united in spirit. T o underline his point he gives a loose version una nobiscum adsis. Etenim Plato, quern omnes boni rerum estimatores ueluti
philosophorum principem colunt, ut huiusmodi sententiam uerbis illustret, his rationibus
ot the myth of the Cave in Republic V II, a use of the myth which has annititur. Si quis, inquit, homo quadam in spelunca nasceretur, ex cuius scissura non
exactly nothing to do with its original use in the dialogue as an illustra- deambulantem hominem sed eius umbram inspicere posset, cum uideret alicuius hominis
peragrantis umbram inane os inaniaque labia mouentem ipsiusque hominis uocem
audiret, umbram illam hominem profecto esse putaret. Ita nos in hac spelunca corporis-
que sepultura demersi cum humanum corpus inspicimus, quod hominis umbra est,
l-!f At ,4.r. 372A: eyu) yap Xoyco avOtXxofievop xouxo povov efureScop olSa cm yuyT] aroxaa hominem ipsum intueri arbitramur. Sed animus uerus homo est in corpore uelut in
aOavaxop, r| 8e ix xouSe xoo x^P^ou psxaaxaGeiaa xai aXurcop. octxe f| xaxco r| avoj euSatpovetv uagina quadam reclusus. Quodsi hec sententia tibi uera esse uidetur, he interiacentes
ae Set, 'Axiox^, j3epicoxoxa euaeptlic;. Cencio's version: Ego autem ratione allectus, hoc longitudines, quibus seiuncti esse uidemur, uel nihil uel certe paruum impedimenti
solum certo scio, ornncrn animum immortalem esse. Qui cum ex hoc loco migrauerit. nostre consuetudini adiiciunt.” I have collated this version ot the myth with the transla­
si iniuria alios persecutus est. cruciatibus afficitur, si uero iustitiam coluerit, contentus tion of Decembrio and Chrysoloras, but find no clear resemblances. Cencio had studied
et sine dolorc permanet. Itaque, o Axioche, siue in hac vita siue in altera, cum pie uix- Greek with Chrysoloras from 1410 until the latter’s death in 1415.
cris te beatum esse oportet. (Rice. 766, 1'. 267r) Whether or not it was Cencio's con­ 132 Bertalot, 2:154: "‘Non eadem omnino ratio atque conditio hominum et ciuitatum
scious intention to suggest the Christian doctrine of rewards and punishments, he est, quemadmodum asseris. Nam licet diuinitus ut cetera Plato dicat, quod ciuitates
certainly succeeded in doing so in at least one interesting case: in a manuscript of Cen­ senescunt ac moriuntur ueluti homines, tamen fieri potest, ut aut confecte senio ciuitates
cio's translation owned by Archbishop Francesco Pizolpasso of Milan (on whom see p. aut mortue opera hominum uel repuerescant uel in uitam reuertantur, homines uero
1251. below), Ambros. M 4 sup. (Cat. A, no. 164), we find written next to this passage emortui non hominum sed dumtaxat dei munere in lucem resurgere possunt. Quod etsi
in the archbishop's hand (f. lxxv verso), “ Catholica et sancta sententia Socratis de pena ita perspicuum sit, ut disputatione minime indigeat, tamen ab ipsa urbe nostra ex-
mnlorum et praemio bonorum. Concordat cum Paulo: recepturus unusquisque prout emplum petamus. . ..”
gcssit in corpore, sive bonum, sive malum.'’ On Cencio's shortcomings as a translator, 133 On Rinuccio the fundamental study is Lockwood (q.v.), which has the earlier
see Wilmanns (note 122. above), p. 67 and Kristeller (1985), pp. 246-247. bibliography; see also A. Mauro, Francesco del Tuppo e il suo Esopo (Citta di Castello, 1926),
' See Kristeller (1985), p. 246. pp. 105-14; T .O . Achelis, “ Die hundert aesopischen Fabeln des Rinuccio da
1111 for Bornio da Sala see D B l, 12: 801-808; B. Bianchi, Ein bologneser Jurist und Castiglione,” Philologus 83 (1927): 55-88; B. E. Perry, ” The Greek Source of Rinuccio’s
Humanist. liornw da Sala (Wiesbaden, 1976); Kristeller (1985), p. 246, note 67, and Aesop,” Classical Philology, 29 (1934): 53-62; D. P. Lockwood, “ In domo Rinucii,” in
idem, "Vita attiva e vita eontemplativa in un brano inedito di Bornio da Sala e in S. Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of E. K. Rand, ed. L. W. Jones (New York, 1938),
I ommaso d Aquino.” in Essere c hbertd: Stiuli in onorc di Cornelia Eabro (Perugia. 1984), pp. 177-91; W. Ludwig, Die Fabula Penia des Rinucius Aretinus, Humanistische Bibliothek
pp. 211-224. ser. 2, Band 22 (Munich, 1975); Berti (q.v.).
86 PART r FLORENCE 87

probably born in the late fourteenth century, for in a preface to the B yzan­ work as a new translation of Rinuccio’s at all, since as Ernesto Berti has
tine E m peror J o h n Paleologus he says he arrived in C onstantinople recently proved, the version is a simple rifacimento of B r u n i’s earlier version
straight from the parental n e st,134 and his stay in Constantinople can be of the same dialogue, a copy of which Rinuccio had somehow a c q u ire d .139
fixed between 1415/16 when he studied in Crete with J o h n Simeonachis T h e second and most popular of R inuccio’s versions of Plato was the Ax-
and 1423 when he returned to Italy with Giovanni A urispa. H e visited iochus, translated between 1426 and 1431, and dedicated to Bishop
Florence in 1424, and shortly thereafter his literary talents won him Angelotto Fosco.140 As in the case of his translation of the Cnto, Rinuccio
employment in the suite of the papal legate in Bologna, C a rdina l Gabriele dedicated the work on a second occasion, this time to Nicolaus V, being
Condulm er. In the su m m e r of 1424 Rinuccio went to R o m e with his no doubt attracted by the large purses that pontiff was throw ing to skilled
patron where he met Poggio and became the older m a n ’s instructor in (and unskilled) translators of Greek literature.
Greek. W hen C o n d u lm e r became Pope Eugenius IV in 1431 Rinuccio R inuccio's final Plato translation was of the Euthyphro, which was proba­
was duly assumed into his chancery. His presence at the papal court is bly m ade sometime between 1440 and 1443.141 T h e re survives but one
again attested in 1438, but he seems to have been unem ployed for six
months sometime between 1440 and 1443. In 1447 he appears again in the
singular! domino a miseratione divina tituli Sfancti] dem entis presbytcro cardinali
secretariat of Nicolas V aureo eius regno, and is known to have been alive as Senensi.” A sixteenth-or seventeenth-century hand has added in the margin “ Piccolomi-
late as 1455/6 working as secretary to Calixtus I I I . 135 neo,” but this is clearlv an error, since neither Aeneas Silvius nor Francesco Piccolomini
With so little known about his life, the well-known sketch of his ch a ra c ­ was ever cardinal of St. Clement, and Rinuccio expressly calls him his patron. Nor can
the dedication be to Francesco Condulmer, also a cardinal ot St. Clement, to whom
ter by Ambrogio T raversari is all the m ore valuable. In 1424 T ra ve rsa ri Rinuccio dedicated some later translations, because he was never “ cardinalis Senensis” .
was anxious to obtain a copy of an A rchimedes m anuscript which Rinuccio See Eubel, Hierarchia Calhohca Medn Aevi ..., 3 vols. (Muenster. 1889-1910), 2:62. The
claimed to have brought back with him from Constantinople. But when dedication to Gabriel Condulmer must have been before 1427, since during 1426 he was
transferred to the title of S. Maria trans Tiberim (ibid.. 1:44).
T raversari invited him to his cell oltr ’Arno, Rinuccio babbled so incessantly 139 Berti. II Critone latino, chapter 3.
that T raversari was unable to make his request. His talk was incoherent 1+0 F. Ravagli (“ Rinuccio da Castiglionfiorentino,’’ in Miscellanea Francesco Ravagh
and violent as well as interminable: now he praised the studia humanitatis [Modena, 1857), pp. 39n, 43), who is followed by Garin (1955), p. 368, identifies the
dedicatee of this dialogue as Cardinal Guillaume Fillastre on the basis of a superscription
to the skies, now he claimed it gave him a headache even to open a book; “ ad cardinalem S. Marci” in MS Riccardianus 162 (Cat. A, no. 105). But though
at one m om ent he attacked the Greeks for their perfidy, at another he ex­ Fillastre, who is not named in this or any other manuscript known to me, was indeed the
pressed his longing to spend the rest of his life a m ong them in Byzantium . Cardinal of St. Mark from 1411 to 1428 (Eubel, Hierarchia, 1:63), Angelotto Fosco. w'ho
is named as the dedicatee in many other manuscripts, held the same title from 1431 to 1444
He denounced Leonardo Bruni as “ the ruin and plague of all le a rn in g ’’; (ibid.). That the translation was made between 1426 and 1431 may be inferred from the
he attacked T uscany wholesale for its hostility to learning. A nd, it seems, fact that in a number of manuscripts (e.g., Cat. A, no.s 136, 146, 339) the dedicatee is
he did not have the m anuscript of Archimedes after all.136 addressed simply as “ episcopus Cavensis” (el. 1426) and not by his later title (cr. 1431)
of “ cardinalis S. Marci” . In the preface itself Rinuccio addresses the dedicatee merely as
R inuccio’s earliest translation of Plato was the Crito, finished w hen he “ pater optime” instead of “ dominatio tua” , the latter being a common form of address
was still in Constantinople, and dedicated to J o h n V I I I Paleologus.137 for cardinals in this period and the address invariably employed by Rinuccio himself in
After his return to Italy, he dedicated the text a second time to his new his other prefaces to persons of cardinalatial rank. Lockwood (p. 54) thinks the dialogue
was translated sometime between 1440 and 1443 (a) because Rinuccio complains in his
patron, Gabriele C o n d u lm e r .138 In fact, it is inaccurate to refer to this preface of his trials and persecutions and (b) because Rinuccio is known to have translated
something of Plato during the six-month period (sometime between 1440 and 1443) when
134 Lockwood, pp. 104-5: “ Ego uero graecarum cognitione disciplinarum pellectus, he was without a patron. But the Plato Rinuccio translated in that period could easily have
patriam parentes ac dulcem tepidumque nidum deserens implumis praecepsque in caelo been, and probably was, the Euthyphro, while Rinuccio’s trials and persecutions were sure­
ut uides uolutaui remoto.” ly not limited to the period of his unemployment, given his neurotic disposition, his vanity,
135 See the letter of' Pier Candido Decembrio in MS Ambros. 1.235 inf., f. 72r [ = A and his uncontrollable tongue. What else could be expected for a man who in 1434 would
141], from 1460. VVroclaw, BU, MS Rehdiger 17 (Bruni’s translation of Aristotle’s Ethics) advise the pope, his own employer, to “ go make a bridge” (deberet pontem ejjicere), who
was purchased “ ab heredibus Ranutii de Castiglione Aretino” in 1457 (Iter 4: 427b). criticised him in a preface for his contempt of res humana, and declared him to be so insane
136 See Traversari, Epistolae, cols. 362f., 384f., and Berti, 41. That Rinuccio did not that hellebore would do him no good? (Lockwood, p. 88).
after all possess the Archimedes is argued plausibly by Berti, ibid. 141 From the preface to his translation of Hippocrates’ Epistula ad Damagetem
137 For the preface, which exists in two redactions, see Texts 25 and 26. The Udine MS (Lockwood, p. 54; see previous note), securely dateable to this period on the grounds ad­
(Cat. A. no. 287) carries the date, “ apud Constantinopolim” . duced by Lockwood, it is known that Rinuccio translated a work of Plato that same winter,
138 The preface is given in Vol. II, Text 26. The dedicatee appears only in BAV, MS “ his brumalibus noctibus” ; the preface to the Euthyphro also mentions “ his longioribus
Patetta 339 (Cat. A, no. 308): “ Rev[erendissi]mo in Chrvsto patrono et domino suo noctibus” (p. 106, line 30).
88 PART I FLORENCE 89

manuscript of it, without rubrics; the dedicatee (who however is certainly Epicurean doctrine that the soul does not survive death, though it is dif­
a cardinal) is not n a m e d .142 ficult to tell whether this happened through some conscious decision on
Rinuccio was not an im portant intellectual like Bruni and we have no R in u c c io ’s part or simply through his m isapprehension of the G re e k .145
reason to suppose his translations served any higher purpose than the a d ­ T h e prefatory m atter to R inuccio’s Euthyphro again gives us no sign of
vancement of his own career. W hy he thought his patrons would find any genuine interest on R inuc c io’s part in Platonic thought. T h e subject
Plato attractive is another question. It seems odd on the face of it that of the dialogue, De sancto et pio, might be thought to appeal to an ec­
Rinuccio would dedicate a Latin translation of the Crito to the Greek clesiastical patron. A theologically perceptive cleric, however, might
e m peror of Byzantium, but the preface here gives us a clue: have jibbed at Socrates’ suggestion that the gods are subordinate to the
I deem that you, who have no small knowledge of Latin literature, will find moral law and not vice versa; and Socrates’ attack on E u th v p h ro ’s claims
this work, laboriously translated into that language, not unpleasant, and it to be a theological expert could well be read as anticlerical. Possible
will not be unfruitful among Latin readers as well, especially since Socrates m isunderstandings such as these apparently did not trouble Rinuccio; his
in this work reasons with divine gravity concerning the obligation to translation at least reveals no efforts to alter the relevant passages. And
observe the laws. This is said to be nothing less than the basis for the best
unlike Bruni, Rinuccio reports in his a rg u m e n t, 'with seeming indif­
condition of commonwealths.141
ference to Socrates’ modern reputation, the charges that Socrates had
T he mention of the tra n sla tio n ’s possible “ fruitfulness a m ong Latin seduced Athenian youth and did not believe in the traditional gods. His
readers” brings to mind that Paleologus was at the time m editating a trip m any mistakes in rendering the Greek do not inspire confidence in his
to the Latin West to plead for military aid against the T u r k . W e may su r­ grasp of P la to ’s philosophy.
mise that Paleologus, like his friend M a n u e l Chrysoloras earlier, hoped
to bind the West to him more closely by d e m onstrating the usefulness of Francesco Fileifo (1398-1481) is more frequently associated with Milan
Greek literature and the com m on cultural heritage. R in u c c io ’s Crito than with Florence or R om e, but he is included here because at least one
would be evidence of both. of his translations of Plato was begun early in his career while he was still
R inuccio’s second dedication of the dialogue to his patron C ardinal living in Florence, and because his m ajor work of philosophy was
C ondulm e r is a mass of flattery which tells us nothing but that the car­ directed to a Florentine audience.
dinal shared the aristocratic taste for polite letters so com m on at the papal Despite the extensive literature on this h u m a n is t,146 his versions of
court in that p e rio d .144 Plato have never been studied, and his massive correspondence, norm al­
T h e dedication of the Axiochus is only slightly more informative. ly so useful in chronicling his activities, gives us no help in establishing
Rinuccio tells us quite frankly that he translated the dialogue to see the dates and circumstances of the translations. But a variety of cir­
whether he could improve his recent ill fortune, and dedicated it to Fosco cum stantial and codicological evidence permits us to conjecture that the
because Fosco was fond of Plato and Rinuccio owed him a favor. T here Euthyphro was turned into Latin between 1429 and 1434, while his
is at least some sign, however, of a personal interest in Plato on R in u c ­ translation of three Platonic Letters, preserved in two manuscripts, was
cio’s part, for he does say that he found the opusculum a solace in his m ade sometime before Septem ber of 1440.147
recent troubles. (T he same dedicatory letter was, significantly, still felt
to be appropriate when the text was later rededicated to Nicolaus V). It 145 At 365E ps. Plato writes, ofi-cox; ou8e u£xa tf]v -ctXeuTrjv y£vf|a£xou, uu yap oux ecnq ;t£pi ov
is worth observing that R in u c c io ’s translation disguises the heretical Etjxai. The suggestion that the soul is mortal is preserved by Cencio (” tu enim non eris circa
quem mala existent” ) but glossed by Rinuccio (“ non enim eris quod es in presentia” ).
146 For literature on Fileifo, see the extensive bibliographies in Adam (q.v.), to which
142 The manuscript is Balliol 131 (Cat. A, no. 211); the dedicatee is addressed as may be added K. Wagner, “ Un manuscrit autographe inconnu de Francesco Fileifo,”
“ dominatio tua” , “ princeps” and “ reverendissime pater” , which would indicate some­ Scriptorium 31 (1977): 70-82; J. Kraye. “ Francesco Filelfo’s Lost Letter De ideis, "J W C I
one of cardinalatial rank. 42 (1979): 236-249; eadem, “ Francesco Fileifo on emotions, virtues, and vices: A reex­
144 Lockwood, p. 105: “ Quod opusculum latinis quoque verbis lucubratum tibi amination of his sources,” B H R 43 (1981): 129-140; D. Robin, “ A Reassessment of the
eiusdem litteraturae etiam non parum perito erit ut arbitror non iniocundum nec parum Character of Francesco Fileifo,” RQ_ 36 (1983): 202-224; eadem. “ Unknown Greek
trugi hominibus quoque nostris et praecipue quia circa leges servandas a Socrate opere Poems of Francesco Fileifo,” R Q 37 (1984): 173-206: the various papers in Francesco
in isio divine graviterque disputatur. Quae res dumtaxat ad optimum rerum publicarum Fileifo nel quinto centenano della morte, Nledioevo e umanesimo. vol. 58 (Padua. 1986);
statuin dicitur esse lundamentum. Diana Robin is preparing a monograph on Filelfo’s major works.
1,4 On the merits of the translation itself, see the detailed treatment of Berti, chapter 3. 147 See App. 5.
90 PART I FLORENCE 91

[n the absence of d o c u m e n ta tio n ,148 it is useless to speculate on the ideas were unoriginal, and that he displayed small abilities as a dialecti­
motives for Filelfo’s translations or on his interpretation of them. We cian. But this was a consequence of his hum anistic method, which pre­
must rather content ourselves with a more general picture of Filelfo’s a t­ ferred to amass authorities, then choose “ the best view ” from among
titude to Plato, drawn from his letters and from his most ambitious work them , usually in obedience to some unconscious apriori principle, less
of philosophy, the De morah disciplina of 1474/75.1+9 usually on the basis of experience and reasoning. His aim was edifica­
It is usual for historians of philosophy to dismiss Filelfo as an eclectic tion, not criticism or original insights into philosophical problems.
compiler, devoid of philosophical ability, and his De morali disciplina as a Filelfo’s merits as a philosopher emerge clearly when one examines his
hasty collection of notes on ancient philosophy, thrown together as part translations of Plato, which display accuracy, elegance, learning, and
of his campaign to win the chair of G reek and Philosophy in Florence. philosophical understanding. His Eulhyphro is tar superior to the later
But there is more to be said both for Filelfo and for his work than that. version of Rinuccio Aretino, and stands together with Cassarino's
T hough the later part of his career was spent as court poet to the Visconti Republic and B ru n i’s Onto as the best Latin translation ot Plato betore
and the Sforza in Milan, in his youth he had studied philosophy at P a d u a Ficino.152351
with the famous logician Paul of Venice, and while still a young m an he Filelfo is usually called an Aristotelian on the basis of a letter of 1439
had lectured on moral philosophy in F lorence.150 T h roughout his life he published bv Legrand, and because of the presence of a tew Aristotelian
maintained a strong interest in every branch of philosophy, adding con­ doctrines found in the De morali disciplina. 105 In tact, as we shall see. in
tinuously to his library of philosophers and discussing a wide range of the latter treatise his sources were predominantly Stoic. Middle Platonic,
philosophical problems in his letters.151 M a n y of these discussions later and A ugustinian; and Filelfo, while making use, to be sure, of certain
made their way into the De morali disciplina, which at least in these Aristotelian concepts, repeatedly distanced himself from Aristotle and
passages must be considered the fruit of m ature learning and reflection especially from the type of (scholastic) philosopher who relied exclusively
rather than occasional pastiche. H e had moreover a good if not subtle on Aristotle's works for his knowledge of moral doctrine. To set against
comprehension of some m ajor philosophical doctrines in metaphysics, the letter of 1439 one can find other passages in which Filelfo described
epistemology, and moral philosophy, and a wide though uncritical ac­ himself as a Stoic or an eclectic; in a letter to Marsilio Ficino he praised
quaintance with philosophical literature. It is true that his philosophical what he calls “ Platonic tr u th ’ - and in the preface to the De morali disciplina
he even had a good word to sav about E p ic u ru s.154* He was also
148 The dedicatory letter to the Eulhyphro, edited below (Text 28), tells us only that for evidently—despite his grossly obscene poetry— an orthodox Catholic: his
Filelfo the subject of the dialogue was "that part of justice which deals with divine
matters".
149 Francisci Philclphi De morali disciplina libri quinque __ ed. Francesco Robortello 152 See App. 4.
(Venice. 1552): Robortello claims in the colophon to have edited the work from an 153 Legrand. p. 31. letter to George Scholarios ot 29 March 1439: Auto? ts. yap tot?
autograph manuscript. The work was later reprinted in a collection with the title, De ixdvou ou -poaxeipai aovov ev tu>rtapovT'., xkka xal TipoGzizp'/.ct, toT? zz npoaxetuivot? xutco
republica rede admimstranda atque alus ad moralem disaplinarn pertinentibus ... (Venice. 1578). Ta pakioTa y.atpw xal Tfg akr,0£(a? auveyopou? gyouaai. w? txutov ov ’ApioroTsket te xal Tfj
i3‘’ See his letter to Carlo Barbavara of 22 Sept. 1476. in MS Trivulzianus 873. f. 542r: akr]0£tpt auvriYOpew. That the De nior. disc, is primarily Aristotelian in character is main­
"Agebam ego decimum octauum aetatis annum quo quidem tempore Patavii diebus or- tained bv V. Rossi. II Quattrocento. 3rd edn. (Milan. 1933). p. 130. Garin. Filosofi italiam
dinariis studebam legibus et iure ciuili sub excellentissimis duobus illis Raphaelibus del Quattrocento (Florence. 1942). p. 151. and Kristeller (1956), p. 339. n. 7.
Fulgosio Comensique, extraordinariis uero diebus audiebam mane oratoriam docentem 134 For Filelfo as a Stoic, see Adam. p. 76; as an eclectic, see De mor. disc., p. 2: "Seel
disertissimum rhetora Gasparinum [Barzizzam] Bergomensem. Nam post prandium ea de re verba facere aggrediamur. ea tamen ratione. ut intelligas [Laurenti] me nulli
operam dabo philosophiae sub eruditissirno clarissimoque philosopho Paulo Veneto or- philosophorum scholae ita addictum quominus per omnia eorum praecepta vagari liceat.
dinis eremitanorum cuius et in dialecticis et in universa philosophia extant volumina et quae meliora probabiliorave censuero. iis turn addendo. turn minuendo. si opus luerit.
quamplurima peracute excogitata elucubrataque subtilissime.” For Filelfo's teaching in turn moderando mutandoue uti pro meis: id quod et Platonem et Aristotelem et ceteros
Florence, see G. Zippel, II Filelfo a Firenze (Rome. 1899). item philosophos tarn Christianos quam gentiles quos vocamus persaepe tecisse corn-
1,1 For Filelfo’s attempts to secure a copy of Plato’s dialogues, see Appendices 8A and perio." His attack on the ignorant view of Epicurus as a voluptuary is in ibid., p. 1: his
10; for other philosophical works owned by F'ilelfo. see A. Calderini. “ Ricerche intorno letter to Ficino is in Legrand. pp. 167-8: tx ~zpi tOeoav rjpfv xoti yeypaupeva Ooxefv 'julv
alia biblioteca c cultura greca di Francesco Filelfo," Studi ilaham di Jilolo^ia classica 20 oux ovtx Tfj? nkatTcuvixfj? akr]0£i'a? akkoTpia aauivcu?. For his approval of Plato ov er Aristo­
( 1913). In a letter of 23 August 1463 (MS Trivulzianus 873. f. 245v) Filelfo praises Alber­ tle. see also below. In trving to make sense of these contradictory declarations one must
tos Magnus (regarded bv Renaissance scholastics as it Platomst) and sends to Cologne take account of the person Filelfo is addressing: his letter o! 1439 is addressed to the doc­
m order to obtain a eopv of his works. For his quotations from works ot the philosophers, trinaire Aristotelian Scholarios. while his Platonizing letter De ideis and the predominant­
mt ludmg Plato, see Calderini, esp. pp. 856-86.8. and K.rave's studies ot his sources in ly Platonic De morali disciplina were addressed to Lorenzo de Medici m the heyday ol
the Dr niuia/i di\i iplnm . cited above in note 146. Florentine Platonism.
92 FART I FLORENCE 93

Dr morali disaphna is influenced at several kev points by St. A u g u stin e ,155 trig true wisdom since he alone was capable of collating together the
and quotes the gospels and the letters of St. Paul along with the doctrines m any opinions of the philosophers and plucking the thread of truth that
of the pagan philosophers. was woven through them all. Filelfo even m aintained that the ancients
Filelfo is in fact best described as both eclectic and syncretistic. His themselves had followed this same eclectic procedure in forming their
eclecticism was of course in part a m atter of convenience, since it allowed own philosophical views; Plato, the greatest of philosophers, owed his
him to display the range of his philosophical learning— an im portant con­ greatness in part to having brought together the physics of Heraclitus,
sideration especially in composing the De morali disciplina. which was in­ the metaphysics of Pythagoras, and the moral thought ol Socrates.13'
tended to advertise to Lorenzo de' Medici his qualifications to hold the Even P la to ’s doctrine of the Ideas had been borrow ed from Pythagoras
professorship of Greek and Philosophy at the L'niversity of Florence. His who was himself following Zoroaster and the C haldean mages. This sug­
svncretism. though built on the authority of Cicero and certain of the gestion of an esoteric diadoche reminds us of Ficino’s ancient theology,
Fathers, was equally a useful position to hold, since it enabled Filelfo like though Filelfo first enunciated it in 1464, too early for him to have been
other humanist educators and rhetoricians to invoke the authority of the influenced by Ficino or Bessarion.158 Yet Filelfo differed from Ficino in
ancients rn bloc against the depravities of contem porary societv. But believing it possible that philosophy could make progress from genera­
Filelfo s position did not spring merely from professional convenience or tion to generation through just the sort of learned eclecticism he
from an unthinking iteration of Ciceronian sententiae. It was equallv a favored.159
consequence of his beliefs about the nature and history of philosophy. For T h e chief criteria Filelfo employed to decide what was good and true
Filelfo, as for the Stoic and Middle Platonic sources upon which he drew, in the works of earlier philosophers were public utility and conformity to
w isdom was unitary and univ ersal, the property of no one philosophical C hristian t r u t h . 160 O n these bases he approves the Aristotelian principles
school, but scattered throughout the writings of all the wise men of old. that virtue is a habitus and that it lies in the mean between extremes of
T he ancient thinkers had disagreed about words, not about reality, and vice. Yet he has no hesitation in suspending these principles selectively
if thev seemed to contradict each other, that was due either to personal in describing particular virtues. Thus, finding the Stoic description ot
differences between them or to the interpreter's failure to understand Fortitude more inspiring, he adopts it in place ot A ristotle’s; so, too, he
th e m .156 T h e learned philosopher therefore had the best chance of acquir-
between the Lieas in the human and the Idea in the divine mind. Filelfo does not take
■" In the Dc mor. disc.. p. 15. he1 follows Augustine in describing evil as a privation his syncretic principle so far that he tries to reduce alt philosophical differences by these
of good ( “Tatuum vero bonitatis habet quantum essentiae "), and on page 28 he ar­ methods; thus for instance he tells us [De rnor. disc., p. 74) that Aristotle disagreed with
ticulates an Augustiman doctrine ol illumination: "Nam turn rationalis spiritus. Socrates' view that virtue and knowledge were identical; Filelfo supports strongly the
quoniam ex dono creatinms lacultateni habet et cognoscenti: veri et appetendi bom. nisi position of Socrates.
radio mtenons lucis fuent illummatus. ealoreque succensus. sapientiae numquam 1,7 For Filelfos version of the history of philosophy, and of Plato s intellectual develop­
caruatisue atlectum consequctur: turn Deus omnipotens. qui et ignis et lux esse dicitur. ment, see Text 30.
luc is splendorcm quern in se retinet ex sese immittenx. intelligentiam ad veritatis cogni- 158 For Ficino s and Bessarion’s versions ot the history of philosophy and their
nonem illuminat: ignis vero de se valorem enmtens. sed non amittens. ad virtutis significance, see below, pp. 233 and 282.
amorem. virtutem acccndit atque inllammat affectionein. Et quemadmodum sol. ab 159 See the preface to Book V of the De mor. disc., p. 73: “ Quod si prisci philosophi
oculo non videtur nisi in solis luminc. ita vcruni illud atque divinum lumen, aliter quam idem fuissent de suis aut disciplinis aut inventis opinati [i.e., that philosophical progress
in ipsius veritatis lumine videri numquam potent. ' Filelfos source here is Augustine. was impossible], eandemque opinionem in posteros transmittere potuissent. multo
Suin'., esp. I.1..3 and 1.8.. 15. maiorem haberemus librorum inopiam. Sed si percurrere uelimus aut Italicos
; " Thus Filello accounts for Aristotle s criticism ot the Platonic Ideas by maintaining philosophos aut Ionicos, nullam hominum memoriam inveniemus, cui ita scriptores
that Aristotle in reality agreed with Plato, and criticized him onlv to show that Plato s superiores omnibus in rebus satis omnino fecerint quo minus iuniorum etiam monimen-
successor and his own rival. Xenocrates. was incompetent to understand or defend tis delectata sit. Ut enim caeteros praeteream, quid Plato in Academica, quid Antisthenes
Plato's doc trine. See Dc mor disc. . pp. 16-17. and a letter to Giorgio Valla in Epistulae in Stoica, quid in Cvrenaica Aristippus, quid Aristoteles in Peripatetica disciplina intac-
I 1502). !. 264v; the clearest version of his account is in a letter to Domenico Barbarigo tum aut minus elaboratum reliquisse arguatur?” [etc.] The objects ot Filelfo's criticism
ol 15 April 1464. edited in Vol. 2. Text 30. Filelfo s account seems to be a deduction here are Aristotelian scholastic philosophers, so besotted with their one authority, so ig­
Irom Diogenes Laertius \ .2-3. perhaps mediated bv Bruni’s Vita Anstotchs (Sc/inftcn. pp. norant of languages and literature, that they never look elsewhere for knowledge.
H-40); he himselt later tells us that his authorities for the concord of Plato and Aristotle See De mor. disc., p. 38: “ Nos vero in utriusque vitae curriculo ita versari exerceri-
were Boethius. Simplicius, and Porphvrv (to which one should probablv also add que instituimus ut et veterum Philosophorum inventa ea lege admitteremus quoad a
( aero s Dc Ini . Books IN' and V): see also the letter ol 1436 to Scholarios in Lcgrand. Christiana Philosophia quae una et verum sapit et honestatem in primis servat, nulla ex
|> 11 1n the Dc mot di\c.. pp. 11-12. Filello harmonizes apparent disagreements between parte discreperit. Filelfo never explicitly acknowledges the criterion of public utility, but
Stoi< . IVrip,11k and Platomst about the nature ol the Idea bv introducing a distinction it is taken for granted throughout the work.
94 PART I FLORENCE 95

finds the A ristotelian defense o f a m oderate degree of an g er wholly It is not really surprising that Filelfo prefers to lollow Plato when he
unacceptable as conflicting with the Stoic/M iddle P lato n ic/C h ristian enters the higher regions of philosophy: it had been, as we have seen, a
ideal of passionless c o n te m p la tio n .161 T h e contem plative life he con­ com m onplace am ong hum anists since the tim e of P etrarch to say that
siders the highest form of h u m an existence, but for him the best kind Plato was the b etter au thority in divims. T h e difference was that while
of contem plation does not concern itself with mere scientia, or discursive m ost hum an ists had to content themselves with q u o ting the City oj God
reasoning, as A ristotle w rongly believed, but rath er w ith the higher in support of this antischolastic topos, Filelfo s knowledge ot Greek
C hristian and Platonic ideal of sapientia, the intuitive grasp of divine ob­ enabled him to show positively why it was that Plato was closer to C h ris­
jects of th o u g h t.162 Indeed, on all the h igher questions of m oral philoso­ tianity in m atters touching divinity. He was thus, with Nicolas of C usa,
phy, where it borders on m etaphysics and psychology, Filelfo seems to the native Italian thinker most affected by P latonism before the advent
have preferred Platonic doctrines as those m ost consonant with C h ris­ of F lorentine P la to n ism .164 But it should be noted that, as in the case ot
tian truth. Following St. A ugustine an d a variety of M iddle and C u san u s, Filelfo’s description of Platonism is alm ost entirely based on
N eoplatonic sources, he posits a Platonic trip artite soul, argues that the M iddle and N eoplatonic sources rather than on the dialogues. T he
virtues exist transcendentally ap art from p articular instantiations of dialogues he certainly read, at least some of them , but when it came time
them , and holds that there is one, self-subsistent G ood which is the to expound Platonic doctrine, he relied on handbooks and com pendia
cause of all p articu lar goods. H e believes the Platonic Idea is to be in te r­ which in m ost cases had little to do with the Platonism expounded in the
preted as an Idea in the m ind of G od w hich serves as an exem plar for dialogues. In no instance, to my knowledge, is Filelfo able to criticise his
the created world. A nd the highest h u m an good he calls happiness and in term ediate sources on the basis of P lato ’s ipsissima verba. Some of the
identifies with G o d .163 reasons for this, a general trait am ong hum anist in terpreters of philoso­
phy, will be discussed in Part III. So for the present we still have no
evidence of a genuine Platonism based on a receptive reading ot the
161 Filelfo evidently felt strongly on the issue, for he takes nine pages (56-64) showing
why Aristotle is wrong to believe that any degree of anger is good. It is significant that dialogues. But it is an interesting sign of the underlying continuities be­
he here claims Plato as an authority against Aristotle, though he makes equal use of tween the hum anism of the early fifteenth century and the Platonism ot
Seneca's De ira and Plutarch; see esp. p. 61: “ Quis audeat afflrmare iram esse secundum
the later Q u attro cen to that, even w ithout a direct use of the Platonic cor­
naturam hominis cum ipsa cum ulcisci cupit, poenae appetens non esse non potest? In
quam quidem sententiam cuius aut auctoritatem aut etiam rationem malimus sequi, pus or the F jd v of N eoplatonic exegesis know n to Bessarion and Ficino,
quarn summi illius gravissimique philosophi Platonis, quo et Aristoteles doctore annis Filelfo should display such strong tendencies tow ards syncretism and the
viginti est usus?” [etc.] Perhaps Filelfo felt the need to defend his point of view since it
divinization of the h um an soul.
conflicted so directly with the pro-Aristotelian position taken by Leonardo Brum in his
Isagogicon moralis disciphnae (Schriften, p. 32f.).
162 See De rnor. disc., pp. 26, 38. In a letter to Gianozzo Manetti of 1457 Filelfo in­ Before taking leave of the F lorentino-R om an school of the early Q u a t­
terestingly equates Platonism with withdrawal from politics; see Epistuiae (1502). f. 97v:
trocento it will be helpful to give some account here ot the diffusion and
“ Iampridem cum Florentiae agerem, solebam primis annis tuum vitae institutum non
probate solum sed etiam laudare, qui Platonicis, ut mihi videbare, praeceptis imbutus. influence of its Platonic translations in Italy and E urope. Bruni was the
rei publicae gubernacula nullo pacto uelles attingere; itaque totum graecae disciplinae best-selling au th o r (at least in m anuscripts) of the fifteenth century and
studiis et exercitationibus te dederas."
his Platonic translations, which survive in over 250 codices, were about
163 For the Platonic division of soul, see De mor. disc., pp. 5, 25, and 55; his source
is ps. Plutarch (Aetius), I~kpi dpeaxov-ccav toc; tptXoaooou;, 4.4; for the separate ex­ as p o p ular as his other works for whose diffusion there is good inform a­
istence of the virtues, see ibid., p. 5: “ Haud enim obscurum reor homini docto et erudito tio n .165* C e n cio ’s Axiochus was also well-known (38 m ss.), R inuccio’s
virtutem etiam dari quandam a materia separatam, per seque subsistentem, ac plane
meram.” That there is a bonum per se which is the cause of all good, and in which all par­
ticular goods participate is argued in ibid., pp. 16-18, where Filelfo depends on Proclus, lrt+ It must be repeated that, while the De mor disc. , on which I have mostly relied in
In Remp . , a copy of which he owned (Calderini, “ Ricerche ", p. 384). For Filelfos exposi­ my discussion of Filelfo's views, is to be associated with the ambience of Florentine
tion of the nature of the Platonic Idea and its sources, I refer the reader to the discussion Platonism, most of the positions Filelfo adopted in it had been put lorth vears before in
of Krave, “ Francesco Filelfo’s Lost Letter,” (cit. note 146). The identification of hap­ his correspondence, before the time when one might reasonably expect Ficino s
piness and the human good with God is found in De mor. disc., p. 19: “ Quare si totius Platonism to have been known to him in Milan.
quidem hominis bonum felicitatem esse volumus, hanc vero aliud nihil esse quam Deum. 11,5 For the diffusion of Bruni's works see The Humanism of Leonardo Brum, p. 45f. Jose!
at telicatatem ussequi posse neminem, nisi quod per medium fieri dicimus uirtutis ad earn Soudek listed 231 manuscripts of Bruni's translation o! Aristotle's Economics in his article.
iter et eundi et perveniendi ante didicerit; virtus certe omnis tenenda est atque exercenda “ Leonardo Brunt and His Public, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 5 (1968):
quam uptime.'' The source here is Augustine, De divrrsis quaestwnibus. 49-136, counting the addenda in “ A Fifteenth-Century Humanistic Bestseller, in Phi-
96 PART I FLORENCE 97

translation less so, but Filelfo's and D a d 's versions rem ained practically C en cio ’s Axiochus were m ade by Pedro D iaz de T oledo, who was one of
forgotten in the Q u attro cen to . T h e great mass of m anuscripts dates from a school of Spanish translators active in the m iddle of the Q uattrocento
the second through the eighth decades of the century, after which the m aking classical and hum anistic works available to Spanish p a tro n s.170
earlier translations were m ostly superseded by F icino's rendering. A n Italian translation (C at. A, no. 193) from B ru n i’s L atin translation
B runi's versions appeared only twice in p rint (1470 and 1474); C encio's of the Letters was m ade as early as 1441. H u m a n ism , and Plato with it,
Axiochus only once in a rare P arisian p rin tin g of the m id-sixteenth cen ­ cam e late to U p p er and Low er G erm an y , but B ru n i’s versions of Plato
tury; Agostino D ati's little version of the pseudoplatonic Alcyon oddlv w ere included in the H ospitalbibliothek founded at K ues by C ardinal
enough had the best success ot all, being reprinted frequently well into N icolaus C u sanus, as well as in the collection of H a rtm a n n Schedel;
the seventeenth century, though after the 1520s it was universally m isat- o th er copies seem to have m ade their way N orth at the end of the Fif­
tributed to Lucian rath er than to P la to .166 teenth and in the early sixteenth centuries. K ing M atthew C orvinus, who
T he surviving m anuscripts are overw helm ingly of Italian provenance; helped Italy extend her cultural em pire into H u n g a ry in the third q u arter
thev also, generally speaking, begin to ap p ear several decades earlier of the Fifteenth century, added two m anuscripts co n tain in g the new Latin
than the non-Italian m anuscripts. W ith a few exceptions, French and Plato to his m agnificent library, and fu rth er connections between Italian
B urgundian copies do not a p p ear until alter m id-centurv; thev are found h um anism and E astern E urope were established by university students
not onlv in the hands of scholars like Fichet and G ag u in , but also am ong and book-collectors tow ards the end of the c e n tu ry .171
high-ranking clerics whose R o m an connections presum ably had T h e audience for the new L atin Plato was not only international; it
Italianized their tastes. C ard in al Briyonnet, who was later to urge also em braced all the literate ranks of society. T h e m anuscript diffusion
C harles V III to invade Italy, was already in 1480 using a m anuscript of of the L atin Plato offers in fact a cross-section of the classes from which
B ru n i’s versions of the dialogues (m ade in V espasiano da Bisticci's the h u m an ist m ovem ent drew its strength. T h e greatest part of the su r­
workshop) as an elegant present for his fellow cardinal G eorges d ’Am- viving m an u scrip ts172 are copies on Fine vellum by professional scribes
b o ise.ltw In E ngland, D uke H u m lrey of G loucester led the wav already w ith decorated initials and even illum inations. T hese were clearly intend­
in the 1440s by adding Plato to his fam ous collection, and English ed for the w ealthy collector, from popes, kings, cardinals and dukes down
students of canon law, m edicine, and the h u m anities who travelled in Ita ­ to bourgeois collectors of lesser m eans. Few of these bear any visible
ly brought back furth er co p ies;168 in one case, som eone re tu rn in g to m arks of study. N early as m any codices can be associated with profes­
England evidently tried to pass off C e n c io ’s Axiochus to the bishop of sional or private scholars. Such m anuscripts are com m only copied by the
H ereford (1450/3) as his own w o rk .169 C astilian, A ragonese, and P o r­ scholar him self on paper, and are often parts of zibaldoni or personal text-
tuguese princes and clerics took an early interest in the products o flta lia n collections m ade for various scholarly purposes. M an y of these have
hum anism , and a n u m b er of works by the F lorentine school circulated som e annotations, though few of any in te re s t.173 Books du rin g the R e­
in the Iberian peninsula and A ragonese em pire, including m anuscripts naissance still tended to end up in m onasteries and ch ap ter libraries, and
owned by Alfonso G arcia of C a rta g e n a , A ntonio de L ebrixa, and the we Find that a surprising n u m b er of L atin Platos were either donated by
Aragonese kings of N aples. C astilian versions of B ru n i’s Phaedo and
170 Diaz was chaplain to Inigo Lopez de Mendoza; on the former see M. Schiff, La
Iwiophy and Humanism: Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. E. P. Mahonev bibliotheque du Marquis de Santillane (repr. Amsterdam, 1970), p. 341. The forthcoming
(Leiden, 1976), pp. 129-43. Luzi Schucan listed 306 manuscripts of Bruni's translation fourth volume of Kristeller’s Iter lists three manuscripts: Madrid, Bibl. Nac. 7806; San­
ol Basil s A d adolescentes in Das Nachlebcn von Basilius Epistola ad adolescentes, Travaux tander, Bibl. Menendez y Pelayo, MS 37; Salamanca, Bibl. Univ. MS 2614. Diaz’
d humanisme et renaissance vol. 133 (Geneva, 1973), and David Marsh found about 150 translation of the Axiochus is found in Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS Espagnol 458, ff. 70v-74.
manuscripts of his version of Xenophon’s Hiero (C T C , vol. 7, forthcoming). The preface to this translation was edited by A. Morel-Fazio in Romania 14 (1885):
See App. 6. 100-101; see also Kristeller (1985), p. 245.
Cat. A, no. 225. The letter of transmission is edited in Vol. 2, Text 18. 171 A good outline of the general situation is given in “ The European Diffusion ot
ll,;< For Duke Humlrey s copies, see Cat. A, no.s 141, 356. Copies of other English Italian Humanism,’’ in Kristeller (1965), pp. 69-88.
collectors: No.s 5;> (Richard Nix), 130, 150 (Henry Cranebroke), 206 (Thomas Wood- 172 Care must always be exercised in this regard since manuscripts on vellum with tine
tordc). 210, 21 1 and 212 (William Gray), 213 and 227 (John Gunthorpe); see also App. decoration for the book market are much more likely to survive than paper copies made
G. Index 4. On the diffusion of Italian humanism in England generally see Weiss, by scholars for their own use. Nevertheless, I believe the generalizations made below are
passim. substantially correct.
:" 1 See Cat. A, no. 1. 17! For examples of Latin Platos owned by well-known scholars, see Cat. G, Index 4.
 98 PART I FLORENCE 99

patrons to such collections o r were confected by the m em bers of religious translations of the early Q uattro cen to was ever lectured upon by a profes­
orders them selves. B ru n i’s Phaedo was for instance copied by San G io v an ­ sional philosopher at a u n iv ersity .178
ni da C ap estran o , and m ay even have had some influence on his
* * *
Platonizing teachings ab o u t the soul.
T h e most notable gap in the evidence is the absence of any m a n u ­ It is clear enough from the foregoing sections that the new interest in
scripts which b ear the signs of study by philosophers or theologians at a Plato displayed by the F lorentine and R o m an h u m anists of the early
university. T h e m anuscripts of A ristotle in this period are consistently Q u attro cen to owes little to any elective affinities felt for his philosophy,
festooned with glosses and a p p a ra tu s derived from the lectio studiorum\ at least as it is conceived today, nor even for the theologized and C h ris­
even some of B ru n i’s A ristotelian versions were apparently used for this tianized readings of his philosophy produced by late an tiquity. T here is
p u rp o se .174 T o my know ledge no surv iv in g m anuscript of the new L atin indeed no evidence that any m em bers of this group (w ith the exception
Plato shows itself to have been so lectured upon. A few m anuscripts can of Filelfo) had even the crudest grasp of his m oral and political philoso­
be associated w ith doctors of arts at P a d u a and B ologna,175 and it is possi­ phy, his epistem ology and m etaphysics, or his dialectics and theory of
ble that some of the g ra m m a r m asters associated w ith universities, like language; this is proved, if by nothing else, by the confusion and error
G u arin o , Barzizza, and C a m p a n o , intro d u ced their students to the new which attended their efforts to translate the m ore difficult pages of the
L atin versions. T h e early p rin ted edition o f B ru n i’s versions produced at dialogues. Such affinities as exist are above all for the Socratic dialogues:
Bologna was probably m ade for such an a u d ien ce.176 T h ere is good the hum anists derive com fort from S ocrates’ and P lato ’s belief in the im ­
evidence that G uillaum e Fichet w hen chancellor of the U niversity of m ortality of the soul, from their relatively benign view of the afterlife,
Paris intended to have B ru n i’s tran slatio n of the Letters used as a text in their secular virtue, love of good literatu re, and public-spiritedness. But
rhetoric classes.177 But there is no evidence that any of the new Plato it is their authority that m atters, not their argum ents.
For w hat, it seems, drove the hum anists to Plato was not so much
curiosity, an open-ended interest in research, a thirst to confront recep­
174 See The Humanism oj Leonardo Brum , p. 201, and Bertalot 2:274. There is some tively the thought of an o th er m an, as preconceived ideas about his
evidence that the humanist grammarian Gasparino Barzizza may have read Uberto
Decembrio’s translation ot the Republic with his students (see App. 7), but it is very usefulness in existing cultural program s, and the desire to exploit his
unlikely that this occurred in the main morning period ol the ordinanus lecture, usually au th o rity in o rder to uphold their own cultural values. At the lowest level
devoted to set books on grammar. A survey of the (published) lists of set books in artibus this m ight sim ply take the form of dedicating a dialogue of the famous
at the Italian universities has produced no evidence that Plato was ever lectured upon
formally in the studia until the very end of the fifteenth century. To my knowledge the Plato to win m oney and favor from a patro n . A m ore substantial thinker
first formal lectures on Plato by a scholastic philosopher in a university were given by like B runi felt the need both to build up the au th o rity of the ancient
Niccolo Leonico Tomeo in 1497 at Padua, and then from the Greek text rather than from philosophers in a som etim es hostile C hristen d o m , and to exploit that
a Latin translation. Seejac. Facciolati, Fasti gymnasti Patavani (Padua, 1757), p. 110, sub
anno MCDXCVII: “ Nicolaus Leonicus de Tomaeis Epirota, adoptione Venetus, pridie authority for his own political and literary ends; he had not only to w ear
Kal. Apr. munus suscepit et quidem primus in hoc Gvmnasio, Philosophiae ex Graecis the m ask of antique w isdom , b ut to construct it. H ence on the one side
Aristotelis et Platonis scriptis explicandae, ita postulante Universitate. On Leonico he shows the sim ilarities betw een C h ristian and pagan thought, disguis­
Tomeo see D. De Beilis, “ La vita e l’ambiente di Niccolo Leonico Tom eo,” Quaderni per
la stona delTUnwersita di Padova 13 (1980): 37-76; D. J. Geanakoplos, “ The Career of the ing the dissim ilarities, while on the other he brandishes the nam es of
Little-Known Renaissance Greek Scholar Nicholas Leonicus Tomaeus,” in AQPHMA Plato and Socrates before the scholastic, m onastic and political enem ies
ETQN I. KAPAriANNOnOTAO, Byzantina 13 (Thessalonike, 1985): 357-372. of his cultural program .
175 See Cat. A, no.s 4, 63, 216, 244, 263, 310, 362, 364, 366, 387.
176 See Hankins ( 1987b) for evidence that Guarino read Chrysoloras’ translation of the It is this u tilitarian approach to the Platonic dialogues which governs
Republic (probably privately) with Francesco Barbara; for the early Bologna printing of the way they are read and interpreted, and helps explain at once the
Bruni's Apology and Gorgias (Cat. B, no. 2), see C. F. Buehler, The University and the Print­ eclecticism in the h u m an ist use of ancient philosophy and the unrecog-
ing Press in Fifteenth Century Bologna, Texts and Studies in the History of Medieval Educa­
tion, no. 7 (Notre Dame, 1958), p. 68.
177 A. Claudin. The First Pans Press (London, 1898), pp. 21-22; J. Philippe, Guillaume 178 For Plato’s entrance into university philosophy classes in the sixteenth century, see
Fichet, \a vie, ses oeuvres (Annecy, 1892), pp. 171-172; F. Simone, “ Guillaume Fichet C. B. Schmitt, “ L’lntroduction de la philosophic platonicienne dans l’enseignement des
retore rd umanista,” Memone della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, ser. 2, 69 (1939): universites a la Renaissance,” Platon et Aristote a la Renaissance. XVIe Collogue Internationale
139-141; Kristeller (1985), pp. 411-4l2nn.; below, Vol. 2, Texts 16-17, Cat. A, no. 237, de Tours (Paris, 1976), pp. 93-104, reprinted in Schmitt’s Studies in Renaissance Philosophy
Gat. B. no. 1. and Science (London, 1981), no. III.
100 PART I FLORENCE 101

nizable pup p ets of Socrates and Plato they concoct from the historical betw een the educative and the critical side-of h u m an ism grew m ore pro­
m aterials available to them . G iven the uses to which B runi and his con­ nounced. Every advance in recovering the particu larity of historical in­
tem poraries wished to put Plato and Socrates, they could hardly have dividuals decreased the value of those individuals as m odels for conduct.
been represented otherw ise than as wise, holy, and eloquent sages in to n ­ T h u s already in the early Q uattro cen to there arose in em bryonic form
ing m elodious m axim s “ suitable for use in schools’’. W h at seems to have a central problem which has haunted all classicizing m ovem ents: the ten ­
attracted P etrarch in the fourteenth cen tu ry — the intellectual ad ven­ sion betw een the use m en would m ake of the past and the past as it ac­
turousness of the dialogues, their un in h ib ited and radical analysis of con­ tually is— betw een life and art, as one m ight say. O n e is rem inded of
ventional beliefs, the Socratic stance of openness to conviction and N ietzsche’s rem ark about his respectable fellow-classicists: that if they
contem pt for d o g m a— did not find m any ad m irers in the fifteen th .179 really knew w hat the G reeks were like, they would recoil from them in
T h a t century preferred its authorities to display doctrina and sapientia, to h o rro r. B runi and his friends had successfully concealed the hom osex­
lay up treasures of wisdom and eloquence on which one could draw at uality of the dialogues, P lato ’s radical social views and (to some extent)
need. T he ancients were im p o rtan t not because they furnished a m ethod his u n orthodox religious views; they had successfully m ade him the
lor discovering tru th but because they were eloquent spokesm en for m outhpiece of their own cultural program . T h e translators of P lato ’s
truth s already know n. H ence it was that the cultural im peratives of the Republic would be less successful, and their relative failure would open a
early fifteenth cen tu ry enslaved the philosophy of Plato to the co n trad ic­ new stage in the reception of the dialogues in the L atin W est.
tory values of Isocrates and C icero.
T h e occasionally ruthless exploitation of the dialogues to serve contem ­
porary ends, how ever, raises the question of the h u m a n ists’ sincerity in
their prom otion of ancient classical culture. T o a great extent no doubt
the h u m a n ists’ tendentious and self-serving m isreadings of the ancient
philosophers were caused by their strong predispositions to regard them
as exem plars of virtue and piety. Like H en ry M orgenstein in the n in e­
teenth cen tu ry , they sim ply could not believe that Plato had seriously
countenanced beliefs and practices “ so re p u g n an t to m odern C h ristian
n a tio n s’’. Yet as the translations above all reveal, B runi and G u arin o
certainly, and p robably m ost oth er H ellenists of the day, were well aw are
of the elem ents in P la to ’s thought and character w hich were unsuitable
for im itation by serious C h ristian s. Still they continued to proclaim his
life a m odel for C h ristian behavior, and his philosophy as a strong
bulw ark of C h ristia n faith. T h e re is a strain of hypocrisy in this. T he
h u m a n ists’ position as educators, advisers, and civil servants depended
to a great extent on their role as interpreters and prom oters of classical
virtue and w isdom . It was therefore im perative that they m aintain as
high a polish as possible on those virtues and that w isdom ; that they p ro ­
tect, as it w ere, the value of their intellectual p roperty. But as knowledge
of G reek literatu re and the ancient world grew, and as critical powers
sharpened, this task becam e m ore and m ore difficult, and the tensions

1' It is noteworthy that almost all Renaissance dialogues are modelled on Cicero’s
‘Aristotelian ’ or magisterial type rather than on the Socratic type; their purpose is to
give a hearing to all points ot view while concealing or leaving ambiguous one’s own
point of view. The Sot rat ic use of dialogue, to arrive at a truth or to demolish a falsehood
through an uncompromising conceptual analysis, is unknown.
 P A R T II
M IL A N

Studium philosophiae non est ad hoc, quod

sciatur quid homines senserint, sed qualiter se
habeat veritas rerum.
—St. Thomas Aquinas, In I De caelo, lect. 22

Nec enim is sum qui tanti philosophi dicta secus

velim interpretari, quam aut ab ipso intellecta
aut posteritati litteris fuere mandata.
—Pier Candido Decembrio, Letter to Michele
Pizolpasso
1. U b e r to D e c e m b n o : R e n a is s a n c e S ig n o r y a n d th e Republic
W hile C hrysoloras was still in Florence teaching G reek to B runi and
o ther m em bers of S alu tati’s circle, he had already received several invita­
tions from Florence’s hated enem y, D uke G iangaleazzo Visconti of
M ilan , to jo in his court at Pavia and to teach G reek and rhetoric to the
scholars of his dom inions. V isconti was a great p atro n of learning and
the arts who had built a n u m b er of fine buildings, collected an impressive
library containing both G reek and L atin books, and revitalized the
university at P avia to which he invited the leading scholastic philosophers
and lawyers of Italy. T hese achievem ents w ere no d o u b t partly m otivated
by his genuine interest in the arts and the traditional desire of m onarchs
to win glory as prom otors of the arts. But there m ay have been a strong
elem ent of cultural politics in V isconti’s p atronage as well. T he Floren­
tine chancellor Salutati in his works of p ro p ag an d a was in the habit of
extolling F lorence’s cultural preem inence, arg u in g (like T acitus) that her
artistic and literary achievem ents were the result of h er republican con­
stitution. So to attract C hrysoloras away from Florence to his own court
w ould be for V isconti a considerable coup, a pow erful rebuttal of Floren­
tine pretensions to cultural leadership. C hrysoloras for his part seemed
reluctant to com e—being perhaps influenced by his F lorentine friends in
his estim ate of V isconti’s good faith— b ut w hen his E m peror, M anuel
Paleologus, joined his entreaties to those of V isconti, he could no longer
continue his refusals. For the chief purpose of C h ry so lo ras’ mission in
Italy, as it would seem, was to gain support for B yzantium in the Latin
W est by increasing the attachm ent of Italians to G reek culture. T his goal
C hrysoloras had evidently felt was best accom plished in Florence, but if
his E m peror thought him of m ore use in M ilan, he would obey. T hus it
was that in the spring of 1400 C hrysoloras left Palla S trozzi’s pleasant
villa outside Florence, where he had taken refuge from the plague, and
set out for the V isconti fortress in Pavia. T h ere he began once more to
teach G reek to another circle of listeners, am ong them one who would
becom e his collaborator and close friend, U b erto D ecem b rio .1

1 On Chrysoloras see Cammelli (q.v.), with the bibliography on pp. 207-213; R. Sab-
badini, in Classici e umamsti da codici Ambrosiam, Fontes Ambrosiani no. 2 (Florence,
1933), pp. 85-94; I. Thompson, “ Manuel Chrysoloras and the Early Italian Renais­
sance,’’ Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 7 (1966): 63-82; G. Schiro, “ Giudizi di
Massimo Margunio su Barlaam Calabro ed Emanuele Crisolora," nejxpaypiva too B.
SieOoGi; xpT]xoXoytxou auveSpiou 3 (1968): 224-226: C. G. Patrinelis, “ An Unknown
Discourse of Chrysoloras Addressed to Manuel II Paleologus, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine
Studies 13 (1972): 497-502. For Chrysoloras’ motives in teaching Greek to the Italians,
106 P A R T II MI LAN 107

U berto D ecem brio of V igevano (ca. 1370-1427) has received little a t­ had beset the cities of the L om bard plain d u rin g the m inority of G iovanni
tention from scholars, and few of his w ritings are available in p rint, but M a ria V isconti. A round 1404 he passed from P eter of C a n d ia ’s service
he is a personality of considerable interest for the history of “ signorial into that of the young V isconti ruler, initiating a period which he was
h u m a n ism ” and especially for the connections betw een signorial later to regard as the happiest of his life. But his good fortune came to
hum anism and the study of P la to .2 L ittle is known of his youth and an end in the political disturbances of 1410, w hen the condottiere Facino
education, but it is a reasonable inference from the ch aracter of his later C an e had him cast into prison and his goods confiscated. T h u s when the
w ritings to suppose that he was influenced by some of P e tra rc h ’s V isconti were restored, he looked upon the change as one from chaos to
M ilanese followers; d u rin g the ’90s on a trip to Florence he becam e a civilization. H is affection for Visconti rule was fu rther deepened when he
friend of Coluccio S alutati, who w ould also have increased his a d m ira ­ was able to obtain the post of ducal secretary for his son Pier C andido
tion for the great scholar-poet. It was indeed U berto and his son Pier (1419) and the post of podesta of T reviglio for him self (1422). H ence
C andido who m ore than any others preserved the values of P etrarch an U b e rto ’s political experience as well as his private interest would make
hum anism in the fifteenth cen tu ry , w hen the rest of the globus intellectuals him alive to the benefits of princely rule— even of a prince whom
had turned to m ore extrem e form s of classicism. Sym onds described as “ one of the most repulsive tyrants of m odern
From 1391 U berto was secretary to P eter (Filargis) of C a n d ia, who tim es” . A nd these attitudes in turn allowed him to confront m ore recep­
was the bishop of N ovara w hen U b erto jo in ed his suite, b ut later becam e tively P la to ’s doctrine of the philosopher-king and to understand his
archbishop of M ilan (1402), and was ultim ately elected Pope A lexander detestation of tyrants and dem ocracies.3
V (1409) by the C ouncil of Pisa. P eter of C an d ia was d u rin g the first
decade of the fifteenth cen tu ry an hab itu e of the V isconti court, and it 3 The details of Uberto’s life from the works cited in note 2 and trom an
was through him that U b erto cam e to act as one of G ian g aleazzo ’s autobiographical passage in the De republica. Book III (MS Ambros. B 123 sup., f. 98v):
“ Ioannes de Horelogio Patavinus astrologus sue etatis acutissimus, cui horologium illud,
leading publicists in his p ro p ag an d a wars with Florence. After princeps inuictissime, quod in tua celebcrrima bibliotheca situm est cognomen imposuit,
G iangaleazzo’s death in 1402 U b erto established him self in M ila n — dum olim servitiis tui sanctissimi genitoris insisteret dicere aliquando solebat infortunium
m oved, as he said, partly by the am b itio n to live in a great city, and p a rt­ hominibus esse non modicum si loco vili aut minus celebri nascerentur, sed longe maius
si hoc processu temporis intellecto, loci natalis dulcedine ibidem et non alto faustiori loco
ly because of his desire to escape the tv ran ts and popular agitations which eligerent immorari. [For this commonplace, cp. prefaces of Bruni's Dialogi ad Petrum
Histrum and P. P. Vergerio’s De ingenuis monbus. j Primum enim fortune non hominis
see the letter of 1413 to Uberto Decembrio, printed in Sabbadini, Classici e umamsti, pp. culpa, at reliquum hominum prorsus ignavia imperitiaque accidere predicabat. Quamo-
86-87. One of Chrysoloras’ functions in Lombardy seems to have been to collect a con­ brem hac momtus sententia, nec minus grauissimo seditionum turbine quo ducalis status
tribution levied by Giangaleazzo Visconti on his dominions in support of the Byzantine post obitum infelicissimum Ducis memorati llagellatus undique fuerat et prostratus,
Emperor; see L. Osio, ed., Docurnenti diplomatici tratti dagh archivi milanesi (Milan. 1864), paternam sedem protinus transferre decreui, ea mente ut nec mihi aut posteris ulterius
1:369-371, no. CCXLV (20 Febr. 1402). For the circumstances of Giangaleazzo’s invita­ preberetur occasio illuc unde discesseram reuertendi. Et quia ilia potissimum tempestate
tion to Chrysoloras, see the letter of Battista Guarini to his father in Guarino, Epistolano, ciuitates huic urbi Mediolani finitimas turn tyrannicis pressuris turn popularibus tac-
2:584-589, no. 863. tionibus prede et subhastationi subditas noueram, solamque hanc licet iddem
- On Uberto Decembrio see Borsa (1893); Sabbadini, Classici e umamsti (previous malignorum improbitas sepe temptauerit hostili prede subreptam, statui in hac me re
note); A. Corbinelli, “ Appunti sull’ umanesimo in Lombardia,” Bollettino della Societa publica potius stabilire sedemque eligere permansuram. Verum me existente ducali
Pavese di Stona Patna 16 (1916): 109-147; E. Garin, in Storia di Milano (Milan, 1955), 6: secretario et inter ceteros urbis fremitus quiescente prope iam telix euaseram (si breuis
557-569; Baron, Cmts (1966), pp. 425-427, 456; M. F. Baroni, ” 1 Cancellieri di Giovan­ huius et fragilis eui felicitas dici potest) nisi in seuam et minus efferatam Facini Canis
ni Maria e Filippo Maria Visconti,” Nuova rivista stonca 50 (1966): 367-428 at 389-390; tvrannidem incidissem, quo quidem imperante carcere teterrimo longo tempore
Hankins (1983b); and the article by Paolo Viti in D B l 33: 498-503. Uberto was the cruciatus, nulla alia ratione quam quod domino meo duci tibique nimis obsequi uisus
author of a dialogue De morali philosophia , a compendium of Roman history, three sum, fortunis arreptis omnibus filiolisque depulsis pestiferas egritudines sum perpessus
treatises, some sermons and orations, a few letters, and scattered verses: on these works quibus iam diu exhaustus deperissem, nisi mors equa eiusdem seuitie prouidisset. Sed
see Borsa (1893), pp. 199-205, and the Iter, vols. 1-4, ad indices. His dialogue De republica ne querellis istis inheream, maxime postquam propitior me fortuna suscepit; illis omissis
and his part in the translation of Plato’s Republic will be discussed below. On the concept ad presentiam me diuertam. Letor etenim naufragi instar qui fortunis tempestate deper-
of ‘signorial humanism” see esp. Baron, Crisis, who emphasizes the ideological dif­ ditis nudus euaserit scopuloque fortune melioris inheserit. Ex quo enim tua benignitas
ferences between the thought of republican and “ tyrannical” humanists; I prefer the statuit mei inopis misereri, Candidumque meum natum sua mihi uirtute carissimum
position ofG . Resta (in Antonio Panormita. Liber rerum gestarum Ferdinandi regis [Palermo. motu proprio in ducalem secretarium eligere, quid amplius doleam aut querar? Locum
1968|, pp. 14-17) and G. Fcrrau (in Bartolomeo Platina, De pnncipe, Universita di iam certum mee quietis aspicio, nec hactenus etiam fortuna mecum taliter seuiente
Messina, Facolta di l.ettere e filosotia, Centro di studi umanistici, Studi e testi no. 4 meroribus me dedere cogitaui, sed lectioni studioque eorum uoluminum quibus annis
| Palermo, 1979), pp. 5-33) who emphasize the common ground in the cultural program­ iuuenilibus oblectabar aut eorum scriptionibus quibus durante officio curialibusque im-
mes ol signorial and republican humanists. pedimentis insistere non ualebam.” Borsa remarks that in the first years of his reign
108 PA R T II MI LAN 109

These experiences, how ever, were still in the future w hen U berto and dism issed as inferior forms of governm ent-leading invariably to tyranny.
his teacher C hrysoloras were com posing their translation of P lato ’s It is easy to see how the doctrine of Plato m ight be used to advantage by
Republic, which was published before the su m m er of 1402A As has recent­ a M ilanese publicist whose w atchwords were “ p eace” , “ stability” ,
ly been shown, the philological part of the translation was alm ost certain ­ “ o rd e r” , and “ rule of the b est” , and how those sam e doctrines might
ly done by C hrysoloras, and the style im proved by U b erto , since the provide valuable am m unition against the F lorentine claims to be pro­
form er's com m and of the niceties of L atin style was lim ited, and the lat­ m o tin g “ lib erty ” , “ self-rule” , “ civic sp irit” , and the “ fruitful com peti­
ter's knowledge of G reek very lim ited indeed. T h e finished product was tion of free m in d s” .**6
a rath er crude piece of w'ork: an opaquely literal ren d erin g interspersed T h e evidence is unfortunately sparse and inconclusive, but there are
with patches ot p arap h rase, its sense fu rth er b lurred by an abundance of som e interesting parallels which point in this direction. In U b e rto ’s pro­
errors and om issions. As in B ru n i's case, the grasp of Platonic philosophy logue he says that the translation was undertak en “ with the support and
shown is severely lim ited. T echnical term s are n either recognized nor at the in stan ce” {opere et industna) of G iangaleazzo; and while it is possible
consistently translated, and m etaphysical and epistem ological doctrines this m ay sim ply be a polite acknow ledgm ent ot p atronage, it is also possi­
in p articular have suffered badly. O nly with difficulty m ight a reader ble that G iangaleazzo, having learned som ething of the contents of the
understand the ontological basis of P lato 's political and m oral d o ctrin es.5 Republic from C hrysoloras, m ay have realized its p ro paganda value and
It may be w ondered w hether the app earan ce of the Republic in L atin so encouraged him and U berto to put it into L atin. W e know that, at a
at this m om ent, in the very crisis of M ila n 's contest with Florence for the later date, both U berto and his son Pier C andido saw the constitutional
control of central Italy, m ight not som ehow be related to the propaganda theory of Republic V III as authority for the superiority of the M ilanese
wars betw een Florence and M ilan. In the Republic, after all, Plato to the F lorentine and V enetian constitutions (see below). T h en , too, the
describes an o m nicom petent state ruled by philosopher-kings who are preface contains other rem arks which suggest that for U berto at least the
draw n from a specially-educated m ilitary caste; political stability is Republic had some relevance to current debates about the com parative
assured by the state assigning to everyone a social task ap p ro p riate to his m erits of republican and princely regimes:
natural disposition. O ligarchies (like Florence) and dem ocracies are To return now to Plato, I believe that he had ordered his commonwealth
in such fashion and with such characteristics for no other reason than
Filippo Maria seemed a more enlightened ruler than he later proved himself to be. Ac­ because ue saw how the aristocratic constitution ot Athens, founded by the
cording to Baroni (cit. note 2), Uberto was probably head of chancery under Giovanni more fortunate authority and laws of their ancestors, had moved to a
Maria Visconti. timocratic, then to an oligarchic, and thence, the evil growing daily, to a
* The date when the last redaction of the prologue to the version was finished can be democratic constitution; in his own time perhaps it could turn into tyranny.
more precisely established thanks to two documents: Uberto’s own prologue to the Profoundly disturbed by the condition of his native city, and wretched at
translation, and a predatory epistle ot his son Pier Candido written some forty years later
(Texts 33 and 39). In the second of these documents. Pier Candido tells us that
the destruction of justice, whose fervent partisan he had always been, as
Chrysoloras translated the Republic "as a relaxation from his cares and in order to nourish upon a sick body nearing death he took thought to lay his doctor’s hand,
the humanities" while he was living at Pavia, that is. after March of 1400. In his pro­ so that even if he did not succeed in diverting the minds of his fellow
logue. Uberto speaks of Giangaleazzo as though he were still alive, (lines 31-32: "ubi nunc citizens, long accustomed to ignorance, at least after having heard a sound
vacat tantorum uirorum ingenia siderei pietate principis contemplari"); hence the ter­ argument they would fear degeneration into a more savage state, or they
minus ante quern must be 3 September 1402. In what is probably the latest redaction of and other peoples might be converted by his good and seemly model {imago)
the preface Uberto mentions that he was lord of Bologna (lines 23-24: "Bononiae. to useful and honorable regimes with strong laws and moral values.7
Pisarum et Perusii domini celcberritni"). This redaction is preserved in two MSS, the
others reading "Pisarum Senarum et Perusii," etc.; see the apparatus to Text 33. The W hen we rem em ber that the same hum anist scarcely a m onth before he
reading of the archetype, Ambros. B 123 sup., is in this case not helpful, since Uberto’s
son Pier Candido seems to have removed the original prologue, substituting for it a com posed this prologue had celebrated G ian g aleazzo ’s trium phal entry
shorter and more elegant redaction written in his own hand (Text 34) and so probably into Bologna w ith a letter praising him for his efforts to b ring peace and
composed by him at a much later date. (It is interesting that in Pier Candido's redaction stability to Italy, while attacking the Florentines for “ exercising ty ran ­
the long passage in praise of Giangaleazzo is omitted.) Since Giangaleazzo received the
rlnrmnmm ol Bologna only in July of 1402, and died in September of the same year, Uber-
nical arts u n d er the false title of lib erty ” , and accusing them (in a speech
iii s latest redaction ol the preface can be dated very prcciselv to the kite summer of 1402.
It is likely on the basis ot the evidence presented bv Bottom (q.v) that Uberto continued 6 On the propaganda wars between Florence and Milan in the early fifteenth century,
to revise the translation later in life. see Baron (1966), passim.
See Hankins (1907b) and Bottom (q.v.). 7 Text 33.
 110 P A R T II MI LAN 111

obviously directed at the F lorentine exiles) of alienating their “ optim ates discuss the genesis of the state, distinguishing (as in Republic 372A f.) b e­
and m en conspicuous for know ledge and n o b ility ” 3*8— rem em bering this, tw een a “ h ealth y ” condition of the state, where h um an desires are sim ­
it is plausible to suppose that the ap p earan ce of the Republic in L atin ple and easily satisfied, and a “ fevered” condition, w hich suffers from
precisely at a tim e w hen it w ould have had considerable value as prop­ inflam ed and insatiable desires for luxuries. But w hat counts as a
agan d a was not entirely coincidental. “ h ealth y ” state for U berto is far different from P la to ’s account. For
U b erto , the n atu ral com m onw ealth is not a city-state, but a regional
* * *
state (like M ilan) m ade up of interdependent cities and their surro u n d ­
ing territories; only when a state has the resources of several urbes vel na-
W hatever m otives m ay have bro u g h t the first L atin Republic into being
tiones can it be truly independent. W hereas for Plato, the healthy state,
in 1402, it is clear that by the tim e U b erto com posed his own dialogues
being sim ple in its desires, has no need for foreign trade, for U berto,
De republica libri I V aro u n d 1420 he was read in g the w ork as a justification
the econom y of a healthy state is highly diversified, and needs m er­
of signorial governm ent. U b e rto ’s dialogues are indeed the best su r­
chants, roads, inns, seaports, shipyards, and a m erchant m arine as well
viving illustration of the way an early fifteenth-century hum anist read
as a wide variety of other trades. For Plato, w ar is the consequence of
P lato ’s m asterpiece. M odelled on C ic e ro ’s Tusculan Disputations, the
the “ fevered” sta te ’s lust for wealth and of the envy and greed it excites
dialogues depict conversations held on four successive days between
am ong its neighbors; for U berto, every healthy state m ust defend itself,
U berto himself, the venerable A bbot M an fred u s of S a n t’ A m brogio, and
an d so needs knights, m ercenaries, and w ar industries such as arm or
two younger friends Leo and Sim on; the scene is an apple grove outside
m an u factu rin g (a leading industry in M ilan), and horse-breeding.
S a n t’ A m brogio, in early spring, tow ards evening w hen the air is still and
Finally, U b e rto ’s healthy state is ruled by a prince, who protects
soft with the singing of b ird s.9 T h e y o u n g er m en ask U b erto , who (they
religion, safeguards the laws and public m orals, and regulates m arriage
say) has read C icero and P la to ’s books on the com m onw ealth, to
and the education of children.
discourse to them upon a series of political topics. U b erto begins by
giving a C iceronian definition of w hat the state is: “ A legitim ate and A “ fevered” state for U berto turns out, on the o ther h and, to be rather
like the M ilanese im age of Florence and V enice: cities dedicated to the
social collection of h u m an beings of both sexes in one place and enjoying
the same laws and cu sto m s.” 10 H e then, following Plato, goes on to satisfaction of all h u m an lusts, filled with m arvelous pictures and statues,
A siatic and fre n c h furniture, gold cups inlaid with gem s, perfum es, con­
cubines and catam ites, and heaps of gold everyw here. Such cities are fill­
3 Epistola Uberti Decembri ad Illustrissimum Johannem Galeaz ducem Mediolam pro victoria insigm
ed w ith a mass of superfluous laborers— h u n ters, w orkers in m arble and
habita, in Borsa, pp. 205-207: “ Quid nunc ages Florentia, imo tuae urbis nequissimi posses-
sores, qui veneno pestifero et seditionibus innumeris urbes italicas inficere, seducere, silver, vintners, cooks, perfum e-m akers, singers and m usicians, comic
subvertere et blandis deceptibus alicere summopere studuerunt, ut eorum more sub falsae and tragic actors, doctors— and in order to feed this surplus population,
titulo libertatis artem tirannicam, cruentam et immanissimam exercerent? Quorum mores
an d to satisfy their own inflam ed lusts, they try to engross the goods of
non sunt paci morem imponere, parcere subiectis et debellare superbos, ut virgilianus An-
chises Augusto Caesari romanoque populo suadebat, sed bella et scandala in dies auctius their neighbors. H ence they need larger arm ies, m ore soldiers, and this
excitare nedum extera sed civilia, eorumque optimates cives et viros scientia et nobilitate only inflam es their am bitions still further, bringing them in the end to
conspicuos patriis laribus abdicare, exterminare et pellere, ac finitimos populos, a quibus
destructive civil wars.
saepe beneficia maxima receperunt, gratitudinis et beneficentiae vice, palam et clandestine
propulsare, violare, decipere et in exquisitis insidiarum ingeniis suffocare, quae omnia U b erto is then asked to explain w hat justice is. H e follows Plato so far
durum esset exprimere ac tediosum non minus audire quam scribere’’ (p. 206). as to define it as an internal disposition of the soul, but instead of regard­
As noted in the last chapter, Plato's literary intluence on fifteenth-century dialogue was
ing it as the harm onious balance of the faculties of soul in obedience to
small, and this is true even of Uberto’s dialogue, which borrows so much else from Plato.
I have noticed the influence of only a few formal elements, such as in Book I where Abbot reason, as Plato does, he describes it as “ a constant and perpetual mental
Manfred, after raising the main question of the dialogue, departs for his religious duties, will w hich renders to everyone what is pro p er and d u e .” 11*T his rem ark,
leaving Simon and Leo to carry on the discussion—an episode which recalls the parts of
a version of C ep h alu s’ definition in Book I (refuted by Socrates in the
Cephalus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus in the Republic. I observe also on f. 95v Uberto’s use
of “ interlocking word order’’ as so frequently in Plato: “ hie, Abbas, vereor, ait” , etc. sam e book), suggests that U b e rto ’s style of reading, like that of other
10 De republica libn IV in Ambros. B 123 sup., f. 81v: “ Respublica itaque nihil aliud
mihi visa est quam hominum sexus utriusque unum in locum legittima socialisque collec-
tio iisdem legibus et moribus fruentium.” Compare Cicero's famous definition of the 11 Ibid., f. 83r: “ Iusticia est constans et perpetua animi voluntas cuique quod pro-
state as "concilia coetusque hominum iure sociati” in Rep VI. 13.13 [Sornruurn Scipwnis ]. prium et suum est tribuens.”
112 P A R T II MI LAN 113

hum anists, tended to abstract sententiae from their context, rath er than to H av in g decked out the virtues in this fashion for several pages, U berto
attem pt an assessm ent of general philosophical positions. considers his case proven and all his hearers agree that they can no longer
At this point A bbot M an fred asks U b erto to explain w hat sort of good think of injustice as som ething good. If justice is the light of the soul, then
(bonum) justice is. He has, he says, long been troubled by the “ vulgar any wise m an will value it, even if, though behaving ju stly, he appears
o p in io n ” that it is only the rep u tatio n for justice that people wish for, not un ju st to others. T his gives U b erto the o p p o rtu n ity to intone a catena of
justice itself; that people only do w hat is ju st because they lack the pow er Stoic com m onplaces, draw n from Seneca: how the m ind of a the wise
of injuring others. If we’ all had the ring of G yges, says the A bbot, which m an is im passible, how he gives no thought to his rep u tatio n , how he
of us would hesitate to satisfy o u r lusts? A bbot M anfred thus raises the preserves in all circum stances an inw ard tranquillity of spirit. T hus ends
m ain problem of P lato ’s Republic: w hether justice is desirable for its own his arg u m en t for the value of justice.
sake, or only for the sake of its effects. But U b e rto ’s way of dealing with U berto then does not him self attem pt to follow P la to ’s conception of
this problem is com pletely different from P lato ’s, and exposes the gulf science and dialectical m ethod. Like o th er fifteenth-century hum anists,
which separates ancient G reece from R enaissance Italy. Plato addresses he has little conception of an internally consistent philosophical position
the question by introducing an elaborate analogy betw een aetiology of established according to rational criteria. H e has nO sense that his use of
the soul and the state, and builds up a series of argum ents which draw Plato should restrict in any way his use of incom patible Stoic or C hristian
heavily upon the resources of his m etaphysical and epistem ological doc­ sententiae. H is appeals to P la to ’s authority are thus largely rhetorical. T he
trines. He wishes (at least ostensibly) to eschew rhetoric, but to bring the Republic is a source of authentic proof-texts which m ay be used to
m ind by m eans of reason alone to grasp co u n terintuitional truths, which, strengthen positions U b erto already holds a priori; it is an educational
once grasped, m ust infallibly lead to v irtuous behavior. U berto, on the tract m eant to encourage m en to wisdom and virtue.
other hand, tries to produce conviction in the will by sw eeping his a u ­ U berto does, how ever, m ake some selective use of P la to ’s political doc­
dience away in gusts of C icero n ian rhetoric. As in the hum anistic (and trines to analyze and justify the concept of signorial rule. H e does not,
Isocratean) tradition in general, the n atu re of good and evil is assum ed to be sure, go so far as to claim that M ilan or any o ther existing state
to be sufficiently known from trad itio n al teachings. H e begins with praise was so blessed as to enjoy the rule of a philosopher-king. T h at, he says,
of the hum an race draw n from a fam ous passage in C icero ’s De natura never com es, or if it does, it com es, like the phoenix, only once in five
deoruin. Does not m an p articipate in divine reason? Does he not have the h u n d red y e a rs.13 R ath er, he identifies signorial rule with P lato ’s
power of language, of considering his own fram e, of choosing his own tim ocratic constitution, and republican rule with P la to ’s oligarchy. Since
path in life? T his pow er of reason enables him to separate the good from Plato regards oligarchy as a degeneration of tim ocracy, he is able to show
the bad, the useful from the useless, and thus the four cardinal virtues that signorial rule is b etter and m ore virtuous than the governm ent of a
are born, including justice. If a m an wishes to be fully hu m an , then, ex­ republican reg im e.14*T h e horrors of dem ocratic and tyrannic constitu­
ercising the powers of reason and not following instinct like an anim al,
he will follow the virtues. 13 Ibid., f. 88r: ‘‘Quintam his omnibus [principadbusj Plato preponit ceterorum op-
timam, aptaTOxpacdav appellatam, quam ideo non appono quia phenicis more anno qu-
For what indeed, by God. is more shameful than the blindness of ig­ ingentesimo semel fortasse aut numquam conspicietur: ea enim est quam ab homine
norance, what is more low than that the human mind should cease to know diuino potius quam humano, qui Stoicorum iudicio perfectissimus in omnibus com-
the light of truth, being foully shrouded in murky errors, what is more probetur, qui ore uel calamo, non autem visu uel opere demonstretur, fore iudicat guber-
shameful than to fall into error and be deceived, what more abominable nandam; illam ergo ipsi Platoni intactam statui relinquendam nosque 'pinguiori', ut
than not to know good from evil ... what is more brutal than the wickedness aiunt, ‘Minerva contend’ quatuor alias complectemur.”
of violence and the desire to hurt others, what more villainous than fraud, 14 Ibid.: “ Prima igitur quam honorabilem [principatum, i.e., Tip.oxporcix6v] diximus
more violent than rapine, more wretched than ambition, more savage than et victoriarum cupidam ea est quam apud Cretenses et Laconas ait Plato consistere, cum
tyranny, more grasping than the desire for others’ goods, more disgraceful vir aliquis honoris victorieque cupidus appetit principari, non ut < ea m > ad se rapiat
aut quemquam violet, sed ut belligerando aut republicam diligenter et salubriter guber-
than discord, more hateful than infidelity? All these crimes the virtue of nando laudem et famam queritet. ... Secunda, que oligarchica dicitur, est quando a
justice detests, and thoroughly eliminates from the rational mind.12 paucis diuitioribus res publica gubernatur, cum interea non sit phas pauperibus prin­
cipari. ... Verum quia ut vitiorum omnium mos est semper in decliuia peioraque dellecti,
appetitu pecuniarum aucto et virtutum pariter imminuto boni utique p < r>ostergantur
crescentibus [crebrescentibus MS] dietim ex inuidia damnosis iniuriis, tertia principandi
Ibid, I. 85v. species ortum duxit, que dimocratica a potestate populi nominatur. . ..”
114 P A R T II MI LAN 115

tions he illustrates by w hat is clearly a deeply felt account of M ila n ’s re ­ fessions which prom ise the m ost profit or h o n o r.18 Like the rulers in the
cent history u n d e r the ty ran t Facino C an e. U berto does not feel that that Republic, the good prince should find m eans to discern the n atural
degeneration o f states is inevitable, how ever, for he ends the passage with abilities of the young, dividing them into gold, silver, brass, and iron
a fervid declaratio n that a prince can m ain tain perpetual concord and natures. H e should also arran g e m arriages according to eugenic p rin ­
love betw een citizens if only he be p ru d e n t and v irtu o u s.15 ciples and regulate the ecclesiastical p o lity .19 Plato is thus used to
T h e train in g , ch aracter, and pow ers of the prince and the aristocracy strengthen the signorial h u m a n ist’s belief in an aristocracy of intellect,
are furth er topics w here U b erto is able to m ake use of the Republic to add b rought into being by a prince who prefers talent to birth. Even m ore
auth o rity and theoretical dep th to his political and educational views. significantly in light of contem porary political realities in M ilan, U berto
P lato ’s theory of the trip a rtite soul is used to argue that the state should uses Plato to show his readers how this rationalization of the state can
be ruled by its wisest citizens. best be accom plished by concentrating political pow er in the hands of the
For the condition of the commonwealth is related to the model of our body, prince.
in which is found a triple division of the soul, namely the rational part, In o rd er to perform their tasks properly, then, the prince and the ru l­
which Plato holds is located in the head, the passionate part which he thinks ing classes require a good hum anistic education. For U b erto the ultim ate
is in the breast, and the appetitive part, whose seat he locates in the reins. aim of education is, like P la to ’s, to create a stable, happy, and rational
The commonwealth is regulated according to the same order as is the society by m aking the leaders of that society good and wise. H e quotes
human body. Just as the rational soul, which participates in divinity, rules
the parts of lesser being, so in the government of the commonwealth, the P la to ’s fam ous dictum , that states will not be happy until the wise rule,
wise are deservedly preferred to the less learned. For it would be unseemly or their rulers becom e wise. T h e educational p rogram U berto sets out
and contrary to nature if the more vile parts of the soul should take it into also includes some of the sam e studies prescribed by Plato for his g u ar­
their heads to rule the more worthy part, just as it would be unseemly if dians in Books II, III, and V I of the Republic. A lluding to the “ divided
in the household of a paterfamilias the servants should lay down the law to lin e” in Republic VI (509D ff.), U berto praises dialectic in particular as
their masters or the maids to their mistresses.lb
an art w hich lifts our m ind out of “ barb aric slim e” and gives it a fixed
T h e need for the rule of the wise is then used to justify a com plete p ro ­ starting point from w hence it can give an account of every essence. T he
gram of h u m an istic studies for the u p p e r classes.17 But the u p p er classes other “ liberal a rts ” serve dialectic in this respect as m inisters, including
should not consist of those who are noble by b irth , b ut rath er of those rh eto ric.20
whose n atu re Fits them for rule. Indeed, all the offices of state, the profes­ D espite these m arks of Platonic influence, how ever, U b e rto ’s general
sions, arts, an d lab o rin g tasks should be perform ed by persons of ap ­ p rogram of studies— which includes L atin and G reek gram m ar, rhetoric,
prop riate n a tu ra l gifts. It is the task of the prince to see to it th at parents poetry, politics, and econom ics as well as the “ P lato n ic” studies— in the
train their children in professions suitable to their gifts, ra th e r than p ro ­ end owes m ore to cu rren t notions about the studia humamtatis than it does

15 Ibid., f. 89r: “ Que [facinora tyrannorumj cum perniciosissima detestandaque sint 18 Ibid., f. 94v.
magnopere laborandum cauendumque fuerit ne accidant culpa aut negligentia populo- 19 Ibid., f. 91v (marriages regulated by the prince) and f. 99v (Erastian church
rum. Optimum ergo pre cunctis extiterit a prudentissimo principe gubernari, cuius cau- establishment)
tione atque consilio iusticia inviolata permaneat, concordia amorque perpetuus in populo 20 Ibid., f. 101 r: “ Sic et futuri philosophi primum liberales artes taliter sumant ...
uigeat, rectoque et moderato ordine universa gerantur. Principi etenim pre ceteris con- potissimum dialecticam que uerum a {'also discernit, rationem cuiuslibet capit essentie,
uenit virtutum omnium continuum officium exercere, ut sit prudens . . . ” queque de omni re sibi uel alteri potest reddere rationem. Hec equidem ilia est, ut ait
16 Ibid., f. 90r: '‘Status enim rei publicae nostri corporis ymagini parentatur, in quo Plato, que sola suppositiones tollens usque ad ipsum procedit initium, [cf. Rep. V I.509
anime triplex diuisio reperitur, rationalis videlicet, quam Plato censet in arce capitis col- D6 f. J ut hoc certum efficiat et animi nostri usum in ceno ueluti quodam barbarico
locatam, irascibilis quam in pectore esse diiudicat, appetibilis tertia cuius sedem subter obrutum sursum extollat ac ducat utens tamquam ministris ceteris artibus quas dicimus
precordia collocauit. Eodem enim ordine res publica quemadmodum corporis humani liberales. Hec est ilia, inquam, quae rationalis scientia dicitur, cuius rhetorica ministra
recta dispositio regulatur. Sicut equidem rationabilis anima diuinitatis particeps ceteris est, que quidem dyaletica tertia pars philosophic narratur.” Uberto seems here to inter­
partibus minoris essentie dominatur, sic in rei publice regimine indoctioribus sapientes pret Platonic dialectic as an art which brings certainty by “ removing [mere?] supposi­
merito preferuntur. Indignum enim foret et nature contrarium si partes anime uiliores tions” , which is surely not what Plato meant by “ hypothetical method” . Suppositio is
digniori preesse conciperent, non aliter quam si in domo patrisfamilias serui dotninis aut Chrysoloras’ and Uberto's translation tor unodeat;; see Hankins (1987b), pp. 160, 179.
dornmabus pedisece legem imponerent.” For hypothetical method in the Republic, see R. Robinson. Plato V Earlier Dialectic (Oxford.
17 Ibid., If. 97r, l()Or. 101 r. 1953), chapter 10.
116 P A R T II MI LAN 117

to the Platonic p ro g ra m .21 T h o u g h U b e rto ’s aim — a good society ruled is no real evidence that he grasps P lato’s.m etaphysics and epistem ology,
by properly educated leaders— is close to P la to ’s, the m eans he would use and if he gives some signs that he can distinguish P la to ’s natural logic
to achieve this aim is very different. U b erto does not really take in P lato ’s from the form al logic of A ristotle, the influence is not so deep that it af­
conception that rulers should be given a scientific know ledge of ethical fects U b e rto ’s own philosophical m ethod. T h ro u g h o u t his De repubhea,
and political values based on a grasp of th eir transcendent ontological U b e rto ’s use of Plato rem ains fundam entally eclectic and exploitative.
sources, and that this knowledge can be used to rectify the vicious and P latonic sententiae are w renched from their context in o rd er to reinforce
irrational aspects of traditional society. R a th e r, he follows contem porary beliefs that U berto already holds, som etim es beliefs which are precisely
educational theory in m aking the goal of education the vir bonus dicendi the opposite of P lato ’s own views.
peritus, the statesm an or ruler whose v irtu e, w isdom , and eloquence will Y et w hen all this has been said, it rem ains true that U berto has draw n
transform society, not by apodictic arg u m en ts, but by m oving the heart n earer to the historical Plato than B runi was ever willing or able to do.
and will. H is conception of the good ru ler, and the ways his goodness O n e reason for this, no d oubt, is the circum stance th at M ila n ’s signorial
m ight becom e politically effective, ultim ately have m ore in com m on with governm ent approxim ated m ore nearly the Platonic state than did
Isocrates and C icero than with Plato. F lo rence’s republican oligarchy. But this is not the whole story. If the
Indeed, despite the m any instances we have given of U b e rto ’s use of developm ent of the V isconti tyranny in the direction of a m odern rational
Platonic th o u g h t, we should not m ake the m istake of thinking him to be state perm itted U berto to receive P lato ’s political thought m ore fully, at
in any real sense a P latonist. U berto in fact states plainly at the beginning the sam e tim e P la to ’s political thought enabled U b erto to see his own
of Book II, in w ords which bear a rem ark ab le sim ilarity to B ru n i’s com- society in a m ore abstract and scientific spirit. It was Plato that helped
paratio in his Life of Aristotle, that he prefers A ristotle both because of the U b erto rationalize for him self and others the V isconti policies of preferr­
clarity of his exposition and the g reater practicality of his ethical and ing the talented to the noble, of shaping public m ores, of prom oting
political teach in g s.22 Like B runi he finds rep u g n an t the doctrine of the learning, of b ringing the C h u rch and other privileged corporations u n der
com m unity of wives and goods; he is m oreover baffled by P lato ’s ideas direct control of the state. It was thus Plato who helped U berto to justify,
that wom en should fight in battle, th at poets should be ejected from the in B u rck h ard t’s words, the state as a w ork of art.
state, that art is a co rru p tin g ra th e r th an an educative influence.23 T here

21 Ibid., ff. 97r-v, 10'2v, especially, but see also Books III and IV passim. 2. Pier Candida Decembrio’s C elestial Polity
22 Ibid., f. 86v: “ Inter ceteros gravissimi autoritatis philosophos, dux eximie,
Aristoteles excellentissimi vir ingenii gratior eo podssimum mihi uisus est, quod ea que T h e study of Plato am ong M ilanese h u m anists is co ntinued by Pier C an-
probabili quiuit ratione colligere disserenda proposuit divinoque est ingenio prosecutus; dido D ecem brio, son of U b erto , who was (w ith Francesco Filelfo) the
ilia autem que vaticinii cuiusdam loco nonnullis verisimilia videbantur, ceu opinabilia ac leading figure of L om bard hum anism in the second and third quarters
prorsus ambigua pretermisit. Notum est quot et quanta de ydeis de celestibus aereisque
spiritibus de demonibus de immortalitate animorum Plato et ante eum Pythagoras of the fifteenth cen tu ry .24 Born in Pavia in 1399, he was held to the bap-
disputauit, multique multa que opinione magis quam veritate preciperent, crebrisque
horum disceptationibus actum est, ut dubietatis [he] hinc inde emersis secte quisque necessaria sine aliena querat iniuria. Quodque viri fortes robustique tutele urbis
quamplurime discrepantesque sententie promulgentur__ Aristoteles vero cuius in- invigilent, quos quidem eorum princeps duxerit eligendos; mulieres autem domus
genium omnes pariter admirantur, qui vulgo Philosophus nominatur, rectiori, ut mihi custodie ac familie sancte ac pudice curam agitent. Poetas attamen libidinis vitiorumque
videtur, via noticiam veritatis edocuit, cuncta probabiliter complectando. Enimvero ministros, quorum delinimentis iuvenes faciliter capi possent, abdicandos opere precium
Pythagoras suique discipuli, Gorgias /f. 87r/ item Leontinus, Socrates, Theophrastus, arbitrarer. Rerum autem gestarum divinos celeberrimosque vates, a quibus electorum
Democritus ceterique sequaces pleraque uti possibilia sed probatione ambigua reli- vocabulorum et florentis eloquii fluenta manarunt, que dementia a rebus publicis
querunt. Ego autem in his De re publica libris, quos duxi alicuius exercicii mei causa his abrogare! Pace igitur viri tanti dixerim, si a statutis sue rei publice in aliquibus forsitan
temporibus conscribendos, non censui Platonem, nisi quantum decorum probabileque aberravero, illud profecto non agam ut plus intelligere me ostentem—nephas enim foret
visum fuerit, imitari. Libris enim suis, quos de re publica subtilissime facundeque com- tanti phylosophi damnare sententiam—sed ut consuetudini moribusque urbium
posuit, nonnulla disserere nixus est, que licet possibilia iudicentur, a publicis tamen diutissime conservatis, sanctarumque legum regula stabilitis, temerario [«c] quodam-
moribus longe distant.” modo non videar contraire.” On the value of artists as educative forces, see f. 102v. One
23 Ibid., 1. 87r: “ Mulieres enim resque omnes suorum civium in comunione con- may compare the attitude of Uberto towards female equality with that of his son Pier
stituit, ut inter eosdem arnorem iugis concordia conservaret, mulieresque ipsas simul Candido; see Text 54, lines 453ff.
( urn viris hostes invadere, eodemque valle castrorumque munimine rontineri: ad hec 24 On Pier Candido Decembrio see M. Borsa, “ Pier Candido Decembrio e
etiam ab urbe sua poetas omnes censuit ablegandos, ne malis moribus rem publicam in- l’umanesimo in Lombardia,” Archivio stonco lombardo 20 (1893): 5-75; 358-441; Borsa
quinarent. Satius mihi igitur visum est, honestis decorisque consuetudinibus inherere, ut (1904); A. Corbinelli, “ Appunti suH’umanesimo in Lombardia,” BolleUino della Sociela
smyuh suas consortes gnarosque [s«/. gnatosque| cognoscerent, pro bisque alendis unus-
 118 P A R T II MI LAN 119

tismal font by his fa th e r’s em ployer, P e te r o fC a n d ia (after w hom he was Alfonso died in 1458, to be succeeded by his m ore philistine son Fer-
nam ed); while still a child he was d an d led on the knee of his fa th e r’s ran te, D ecem brio once m ore was obliged to take to the road. H e returned
revered teacher and friend, M an u el C hrysoloras. W ith such models to R om e for two years as a secretary to Pius II, but it w ould appear that
before him , the boy could h ardly have failed to follow a literary career, he still longed to re tu rn to M ilan, for in 1460 he rem oved to that city,
and in fact we find him already in 1419 w in n ing em ploym ent as the even though he had no Firm offer of p atro n ag e there. T h ro u g h o u t the
secretary of Filippo M a ria V isconti, the violent and neurotic D uke of 1450s, indeed, he had been directing a stream of obsequious letters and
M ilan. T his terrifying post he held for n early thirty years, partly, as it dedications to D uke Francesco Sforza and to m em bers of his court, but
would seem, from genuine atta c h m e n t to the D uke, b ut m ore, perhaps, he never achieved his object of being restored to favor. At length, in
out of a strong patriotic feeling for his native land. Such conclusions at 1466, he w on a pension from the Este in F e rra ra , w hich he continued to
any rate have been d raw n by scholars w ho have considered his behavior receive until 1474. Even in this later period he resorted frequently to
in 1447, after the death of the D uke, w hen for a b rief period M ilan was M ilan, eventually dying there in 1477; he was buried in the cathedral ol
transform ed into the A m b ro sian R epublic: P ier C an d id o continued to S a n t’A m brogio, where a tom b was erected to preserve his m em ory.
work as secretary to the republic, not from any secret sym pathy with D ecem b rio ’s works are rem arkable m ore for their n u m b er than for
republican principles (as he later explained), b u t because he was unw ill­ th eir quality. T h e best and m ost fam ous of them is the Life of Filippo
ing to ab andon his diplom atic efforts on b eh alf o f M ilan in the very crisis Maria Visconti, praised by B urckhardt, and it is indeed a fascinating p o r­
of her w ar with V enice. W h atev er his m otives m ay have been, w hen trait of a R enaissance ty ran t, though one feels in reading it that its
Francesco Sforza cam e to pow er in 1449 he did not retain P ier C andido fascination owes m ore to a certain ingenuous frankness on the part of the
in his service, w hether because D e c e m b rio ’s service to the republic had au th o r th an to his literary skill. D ecem b rio ’s o th er historical works are
tainted him , o r because o f his rival Filelfo’s slanderous tongue it is dif­ less successful: an adulatory biography of Francesco Sforza; lives of vari­
ficult to tell. ous ancient authors, including H o m er, C aesar, V ergil, O vid, Statius,
D ecem brio was thus forced at the age of fifty to begin the life of a L u can , and Ju v en al; and various historical com pendia, all of which
w andering h u m an ist in search of a p a tro n . H e began well enough, w in­ b etray a certain inability to digest and o rd e r m aterial properly. His other
ning em ploym ent in the chancery o f N icolas V ; this indeed was one of works are equally typical productions for a hum anist: orations, treatises,
the happiest periods of his life, w ith a good salary, light duties, an ap ­ verses and epigram s, polem ics, a gram m atical textbook, and a large and
preciative p a tro n , and the co m p an io n sh ip of a large group of the greatest fascinating epistolario, still unpublished, w hich has the unusual m erit of
scholars of the day. (Poggio rem ark ed a ro u n d the tim e of P ier C a n d id o ’s co n tain in g both D ecem b rio ’s original letters to his correspondents, and
arrival that the chancery was now so large th at it could by itself defeat their (ap parently unedited) replies.
the T u rk .) T h e golden days cam e to an en d , how ever, w ith the accession T h e n there are his translations, upon w hich, despite their poor quality,
of C alixtus III, and D ecem brio, along w ith a b an d of o th er hum anists, his co ntem porary reputation rested. It was no accident that the earlier ol
soon dep arted for the N eapolitan co u rt of Alfonso the G reat of A ragon, these tran slatio n s— the epitom e of P lu tarch , the redaction of H o m er,'an d
who had won a rep u tatio n as a leading p a tro n of letters in Italy. W hen * the version of the Republic— were all w orks th at had previously been
tran slated . D ecem brio seems to have tau g h t him self G reek in the early
pavese di storia patna 16 (1916): 109-147 and ibid. 17 (1917): 5-51; F. Gabotto, “ L’attivita 1430s from C h ry so lo ras’ Erotemata, and by co m p arin g the G reek text of
politica di Pier Candido Decembrio,” Giornale ligustico 20 (1893): 161-199, 241-270; E. Ecclesiastes and certain lives of P lutarch w ith L atin versions available to
Diet, ‘‘Pier Candido Decembrio, Contributo alia storia dell’umanesimo italiano,”
him . G u arin o and some m em bers of his circle, w ith the usual contem pt
Memone del R. Istituto lombardo di scienze e letters, Classe di letters, scienze morali e storiche 24
(1913 [1917/19]), pp. 21-108; A. Monteverdi, ‘‘Pier Candido Decembrio,” in Italia of the well educated for the self taught, expressed doubts that Decem brio
Romana, Lombardia Romana (Milan, 1938), pp. 169-194; E. Garin in Storia di Milano could have genuinely learned G reek thus w ithout a m aster; D ecem brio
(Milan, 1955), 6: 581-585, 604-608; Baroni (cited note 2), pp. 400-401; Kristeller (1985),
defended him self by w riting several letters exposing (w ith some justice)
pp. 281-300 and 567-584; D B l 33: 488-498 (P. Viti), and the articles of Zaccaria listed
in the Abbreviations, with further bibliography. Service with Pius II: see Ambros. I 235 defects in the translations of B runi, Jaco p o A ngeli da Scarperia, and
int., I. 64r, and R. B. Hilary, “ Sources lor a Biography of Pier Candido Decembrio,” even, diffidently, G uarino himself. E ventually he was able to compose a
Romance Notes 16.3 (1974-75): 700-701, who cites two Vatican registers of 13 October
1458 appointing Decembrio to the post of apostolic secretary. For his devotion to Filippo
letter in G reek, and sent it to G uarino; the latter retu rn ed the missive
Maria: Ambros. 1 235 inf., f. 9r. politely, covered with corrections. G u arin o had earlier denied that Pier
 120 P A R T II MI LAN 121

C a n d id o ’s father U berto knew even a syllable of G reek, and had asserted how ever, D ecem brio thinks it is possible to go too far. In history especial­
that U b e rto ’s part in the first tran slatio n of the Republic had been m erely ly, “ which loves and dem ands tr u th ” , om issions, changes, and mistakes
that of a scribe; later, he dism issed P ier C a n d id o ’s version as a sim ple are particularly reprehensible; some of his contem poraries, D ecem brio
nfacimento of C h rv so lo ras’. T h e D ecem b rii, m inions of the V isconti says (probably referring to B ru n i’s com pilations from Procopius and
tyrants with w hom V enice and the house o f Este were repeatedly at w ar X enophon), are guilty of falsifying history in this w av .*2328 In another
in this period, would not have th eir claim s to learn in g endorsed, by passage (perhaps also aim ed at B runi) D ecem brio suggests that a m ore
G u arin o at any ra te .25 scrupulous accuracy m ust be preserved in philosophical translation as
T ho u g h as we shall see P ier C a n d id o ’s m astery of G reek was rath er well. W riting to D uke H u m p h rey in the preface to his translation of the
better than G u a rin o was w illing to ad m it, it is certainly tru e that he was Republic, he excused him self in the following term s:
not nearly as com petent a H ellenist as som e of his co n tem p o raries.26 N or If I seem to have translated any passages too licentiously [here clearly refer­
was he as advanced as oth er h u m an ists of the period in his practice of ring to departures from Latin propriety, not loose translation] or to have
translation. H e recognized, to be sure, the principle of ad sententiam which written with too little polish, I think I should be excused for my carefulness
C hrvsoloras and Bruni had estab lish ed .27 Yet in his actual translations and scrupulosity, which does not presume to depart from Plato’s intentions
D ecem brio was m uch closer to the m edieval practice of translation than for the sake of any meretricious embellishment, or to put anything before
his authority. For he seems to have taken pains not only with his diction,
were Bruni or G u arin o . T h is was in p a rt a consequence of his literary
but also with his meaning.29*
standards, which were less classical th an those fashionable in o ther parts
o flta lv . For B runi and G u a rin o the chief concern was always to preserve D ecem brio thus seems to argue for three distinct kinds of translation,
the literary pow er of the G reek source while m ain tain in g the propriety each ap p ropriate to different kinds of texts. Sacred texts m ust be
of classical L atin diction. T h is inevitably entailed a certain loss of preci­ rendered in a strictly literal way; paraphase is perm issible for rhetorical
sion in ren d erin g G reek ideas into L atin. D ecem brio on the o th er hand or poetical texts which aim prim arily at literary effect; b ut in between sits
had a m uch less strict view o f latinitas, or p ro p rie ty — perhaps it w ould be an o th er kind of translation, ap p ro p riate to historical and philosophical
more correct to say he was a worse L a tin ist— ; his diction resem bled texts, which is neither strictly ad verbum n o r so loose that historical truth
P e tra rc h ’s in its tendency to engraft u p o n a fun d am entally m edieval syn­ or philosophical doctrine is falsified. D ecem brio m ay not have been so ac­
tax w hatever choice w ords an d phrases he had picked up in his classical
reading. His relative lack of concern for classical propriety m ade it 28 Decembrio’s attitude here is reported by his friend and collaborator Antonio da
Rho, in the latter’s Dialogi in Lactantium (Ambros. D 105 sup., t. 9r-v; tor the accuracy
paradoxically easier for him to re n d e r the G reek m ore literally. of this work in representing Decembrio’s thought, see below, note 88): “ Hoc loco Can-
But D ecem b rio ’s practice of tran slatin g m ore literally was not only a didus inquit ... ‘Sunt qui in traducendis grecis codicibus non verbum ex verbo sed sen-
result of following less classical stan d ard s o f diction; it was also a product sum exprimant de sensu. Cuius rei magistrum Ciceronem habere se dicunt, qui
Prothagoram Platonis et Econormcum Xenophontis et Eschinis et Demostems duas contra se
of study and reflection. D ecem brio follows J e ro m e in insisting that sacred orationes pulcherrimas transtulit. Sed quanta in illis pretermiserit, quanta addiderit,
texts are to be translated ad verbum, while allow ing to those who translate quanta mutaverit ut proprietates alterius lingue suis proprietatibus explicaret, arbiter est
works of “ secular w rite rs” a degree of license. Even with secular w riters, ad Pamachum scribens utriusque lingue peritissimus ipse Hieronymus. Oratium quoque
virum acutum et doctum legimus interpreti ita precipere: “ Nec verbum verbo curabis
reddere fidus interpres” [Epist. 2.3.133-4], Sic Terentius Menandrum, sic Plautus et
25 See Hankins ( 1987b), p. 153f. Guarino and Decembrio had also crossed swords over Cecilius veteres comicos interpretati sunt. Hec herent in verbis que traducta nequaquam
the affair of Francesco Carmagnola, a condottiere who had defected from Milan to cohererent, sed decorem magis et elegantiam prosecuti sunt. Verum hec in secularium
Venice; Guarino was in sympathy with the Venetians throughout this period, despite his litteris servanda existimo. Ubi tamen haud nulli ex nostratibus et coetaneis nostris, qui
defense of the imperial idea in his controversy with Poggio. See R. Sabbadini, “ Guarino greca multa, presertim historias (que veritatem, ut ait Cicero, et amant et exigunt) inter­
Veronese e la polemica sul Carmagnola.’’ Nuovo archwio veneto, n.s., 11 (1896); 327-361. pretati sunt, non solum pretermiserunt aut addiderunt aut mutauerunt, ceterum falsa et
2b For the defects of Pier Candido's translations, see Resta, Le epitomi\ Resta (1959); que ab hystoria magistra veritatis abhorrent, miscuerint. Et ita ilia nequaquam
Dm, “ PierCandido Decembrio ”; C. Fabiano, “ P .C .D . traduttore d’Omero,” Aevum verterunt, sed euerterunt. Sunt et alii qui verbum e verbo traducant. Hoc autem sacris
23 (1949): 36-51, esp. 431.; Hankins (1986), appendix. See also App. 9. in literis in quibus “ ipse uerborum ordo mysterium est” [Jerome, Epist. 165] curandum
-7 In a letter to Alberto Costabili, in Resta, Le epitomi, p. 26: " Haec ad verbum traduc- puto.’ ” For the rivalry between Decembrio and Bruni see below, p. 122.
ta inconcinna sunt: caeterum non sonum sed sententiam requiro.” In a letter written 29 Borsa (1904), p. 519: “ Si quae autem a nobis aut licentius repetita aut incultius
much later (1467) to the famous poet Tito Strozzi, Decembrio invokes the authority of perscripta videbuntur, ignoscendum curae ac diligentiae nostrae reor, quae a Platonis
Jerome s De tempnnhus to justify the looseness ot his translation of Homer. See A. Della voluntate nullo lenocinio discedere praesumpserit aut illius auctoritati quicquam
(itiardia. La pohtia hlterana di Angela Decembrio (Modena, 1910), p. 85. anteferre, qui non modo quid deceret, sed quid sentiret elaborare visus est.’
 122 P A R T (I MI LAN 123

com plished a H ellenist as B runi, but his ideas about translation are in etym ological grounds that B ru n i’s C iceronian term s for the varieties of
this respect, p erhaps, m ore sophisticated. constitutions failed to convey all the connotations of the G reek. “ T he
D ecem b rio ’s tendency to put m ean in g before elegance leads him , in Philosopher [A ristotle],” D ecem brio concluded, “ explicates weighty
contrast with B runi, to preserve an im p o rtan t feature of m edieval m atters with such short w ords that Latin w ords are scarcely satisfactory ;
translation technique, nam ely, the tran sliteration of technical term s. the [transliterated] G reek w ords [of the m edieval translator], are more
Bruni had severely criticized this practice of the m edieval translators of significant and su itab le.” 32 T h u s D ecem brio in the end cam e around to
A ristotle’s Ethics and Politics, and insisted that proper equivalents could A lfonso’s view that the thirteenth-century translation of G rosseteste was
be found for all G reek w ords in classical L atin authors. T h u s apta'oxpaxta in som e respects m ore accurate than B ru n i’s. Allonso was delighted to
should be tran slated by optimorum potestas instead oi anstocratia, STipoxpaTia have such learned support for his own conceptions.
by popularis potestas, and so forth, ju st as C icero had done. B runi in his
But when I [Alfonso] had read your second letter in which you discuss some
turn had l>een criticized for this by Bishop Alfonso G arcia of C artag en a, matters about the propriety of Greek words by comparing the Greek and
who, in defense of the m edieval translato rs, had tried to show that the the Latin to each other, the pleasure I received from reading your first letter
G reek words had precise technical m eanings not cap tu red by the C icero ­ was increased with a sort of cumulative effect when I looked at the second,
nian Latin term s, and had m aintained that in philosophy fidelity to the since many things in those letters seemed to me very conformable to reason.
And I now seem in a sense to understand why the old translator
termini technici was m ore im p o rtan t than p reserving literary g race.30
[Grosseteste] left some Greek words intact [i.e., transliterated them]; he
W hen D ecem brio becam e involved in the q u arrel in the au tu m n of was moved, as I believe, particularly by the consideration that he was not
1436 he at first took B ru n i’s p art in the dispute, though since the relevant supplied with Latin words which might convey the full sense [designatio] of
text has been lost it is not know n how deeply he com m itted him self to the thing in so restricted a form of words [sub lam stncto syllabarum compendio].
B ru n i’s views on the tran slatio n of technical term s. In the late 1430s, It is a very pleasant thing, and very advantageous for the communication
of a science, when a true understanding [ipsa ratio] of doctrine accords with
how ever, there tran sp ired several events which forced B runi and D ecem ­
propriety of speech.33
brio apart: a literary contest betw een the M ilanese and the F lorentine in
which each tried to convince the C ouncil of Basel to relocate in his own H ence w hen it cam e to his own translation of P lato ’s Republic D ecem brio
city;31 a rivalry betw een the two for the p atro nage of D uke H u m p h rey rarely used paraphrase or circum locutions in deference to C iceronian
of G loucester; grow ing indications that Alfonso of C a rta g e n a m ight be stan d ard s of L atinity, and freely em ployed transliterations such as ydea,
willing to becom e D ecem b rio ’s p atro n . T h u s w hatever D ecem b rio ’s democratia, aristocratia, politia (as in the title ot the w ork), and other words
views had been earlier, by the late 1430s he professed the view of Alfonso sanctioned by the m edieval tradition. W here he thought a transliterated
that some technical term s needed to be tran sliterated in o rd er not to term m ight be unfam iliar to L atin readers, he provided a L atin gloss in
obscure their exact m eaning. In a letter of 1437 to A lphonso he opposed the m argin, a technique which bears some analogy to the practice of
B ru n i’s position on the translation of technical term s, arg u in g on G rosseteste. D ecem b rio ’s conception of m eaning as an intrinsic property
of w ords, rooted in their etym ologies, is thus m uch m ore conservative
30 On this controversy, see my section on "The Ethics Controversy” in The Humanism th an B ru n i’s, who (at least in some passages) recognized that the m ean­
of Leonardo Bruni, pp. 201-208 with further bibliography. Decembrio’s part in the con­
troversy. as (in effect) the linguistic adviser of Alfonso, has not been treated in the secon­ ing of a w ord could not be interpreteted separately from the proposition
dary literature, but see Texts 52G and 52H. in w hich it was im bedded, and that w ords and propositions, to be correct­
11 Hans Baron (1968), p. 152. notes that Decembrio's Panegyric on Milan (see below, ly in terp reted , had to be related to the historical and cultural milieu
p. 140) was written as a reply to the republication of Bruni’s Laudatio in the 1430s; Bruni
had sent his work to Basel as part of his propaganda campaign on behalf of Florence.
w hich they had originally inhabited.
In an unpublished state letter written seemingly to Archbishop Pizolpasso Bruni com­ * * *
plains that someone writing “ sub nomine ac titulo Ducis Mediolanensis” (almost cer­
tainly Decembrio) had written "litterae quaedam diffamatoriae” against the city of
Florence. He then goes on to abuse the literary style of the letters and refute the assertion
made that Florence, as a republic, necessarily suffered from internecine strife (New
Haven, Connecticut, Yale University, Beinecke Library, MS Marston 60, ff. 97v-98v).
1his is the immediate context of Decembrio's “ Platonic" defense of the Milanese con­
stitution (see below, p. 140). See also the state letters edited in Bruni Ep., ed. Mehus. 32 See Text 52G, lines 62-64.
2:2350., and R. Sabbadini, Sludi sul Panormita e sul Valla (Florence, 1891). p. 751, 33 See Text 52H.
 24 P A R T II MI LAN 125

Thd events which gave rise to D ecem b rio 's new translation of'the Republic new at all, but sim ply a copy of his fath er’.s v ersio n .36 W hen reproached
are well docum ented and have been th oroughly reconstructed in the re­ w ith this, D ecem brio w rote back instantly to repudiate the charge, send­
cent literatu re, so it will not be necessary to do m ore th an sum m arize ing him a copy of his fath er’s translation of Book V for com parison. At
them h e re .34 the sam e tim e he inform ed C astiglione of his intention to translate the
D ecem brio's study of the work evidently began in 1437 and focused whole work. C astiglione accepted D ecem b rio ’s explanation and encour­
initially on A ristotle's criticism s, in Book II of the Politics, o f P la to ’s aged him to dedicate the work to D uke H u m p h rey ; D ecem brio then
notorious doctrines of the com m unity of w om en and property. From his w rote to his friend R olando T alen ti, C astig lio n e’s secretary, to ask him
study of the Republic D ecem brio felt (quite rightly) that A risto tle’s p resen­ to propose the dedication to the Duke.
tation of P la to ’s doctrines was inaccurate and unfair, and he hit upon the T alen ti, how ever, did not move quickly enough to satisfy the im patient
idea of retran slatin g Book V’ so that P lato could sua voce refute A ristotle P ier C andido. T ow ards the end of 1437, therefore, he w rote to Francesco
and his m odern sectaries. T his he speedily accom plished, dedicating the Pizolpasso, the A rchbishop of M ilan, asking the prelate to recom m end
translation to his friend Z enone A m idano, who was the secretary of him to the D uke. Pizolpasso, who was still in Basel w ith the Council, did
Ger|ardo L an d rian i, Bishop of C om o. It was L an d rian i. evidently, who as D ecem brio asked and, sending him as a praegustatio Pier C an d id o ’s
info|rmed D ecem brio that B ru n i's new translation of the Politics, which version of Book V , he added to the package a letter of his own, warmly
to have been given to D uke H u m p h re y of G loucester, had in fact recom m endin g D ecem brio to fill the room in H u m p h re y ’s patronal affec­
beeh given instead to Pope E ugene IV ; this ap p aren tly gave D ecem brio tions left by the defection of L eonardo B runi. So grateful was Decem brio
the idea of w inning the D u k e's p atronage for him self through a transla- for this intervention on his behalf that he later dedicated Book X of the
tion of the com plete Republic. 35 w ork to Pizolpasso.37
L an d rian i at that tim e was in Bologna w ith the pro-papal party, which Even before Pizolpasso’s letter to the D uke, how ever, D ecem brio and
had recently seceded from the C ouncil of Basel. Also at Bologna was the the A rchbishop had been in correspondence about the new translation.
Bishop of B aveux, Zenone da C astiglione, who was a nephew of C ard in al T h e copy of Book V Pizolpasso had had transcribed for the Duke was in
Bra nda. a student of G asparino Barzizza, and a pow erful churchm an in fact m ade from a codex he had requested of D ecem brio some m onths
the English dom inions on the continent. C astiglione had been sent to the earlier on behalf of his friend, Alfonso of C artag en a. Alfonso was, as
C ouncil officially as the representative of H en ry V I, and unofficially as Pizolpasso ’ jp o rted , curious about P lato ’s impudicissima lex on the com ­
the literary agent of the K in g ’s P ro tecto r, D uke H u m p h rey of m on possession of wives and goods which he had read about in Aristotle
Glo ucester. whose am usem ent it was to cultivate m en of letters and col- and his canon law textbooks, and was eager to see P la to ’s very words on
lect books. L an d rian i s secretary A m idano gave a copy of D ecem brio's the m atter. Pizolpasso recom m ended he consult D ecem brio for further
version of Book V to C astiglione, perhaps w ith the idea of recom m ending explanations. A lthough D ecem brio and Alfonso had recently been in
D ecem brio for the D u k e’s p atronage. U n fo rtu n ately a fam iliar of controversy regarding B ru n i’s translation of the Ethics, on this occasion
C astiglione. U golino Pisano, an A ristotelian and stu d en t of law, m ade th eir exchanges were cordial, so m uch so that in tim e D ecem brio would
the sly suggestion to C astiglione that P ier C a n d id o ’s translation was not dedicate the sixth book of the Republic to Alfonso, and receive (rather to
his disappointm ent) the present of a S panish m ule in retu rn . T he two
continued to correspond in friendly fashion until the 1460s.38
See the accounts in Borsa (1904); W. L. Newman, “ The Correspondence of Hum-
p h rc y, Duke of Gloucester, and Pier Candido Decembrio.” English Historical Review 20
(1905): 484-498; H. K. Vickers, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (London, 1907), pp. 36 Landriani had circulated in Basel a copy of Uberto’s and Chrysoloras' version
853-860; Weiss (q.v.), chapter 4; Zaccaria (1958); Zaccaria (1967); T. Foffano, which Pier Candido had lent him in 1427 or 1428: see Zaccaria (1974), p. 197, and Texts
■Unionist i italiani in Normandia,” Rinascimento. ser. 2, 4(1964): 3-34: Fubini (1966); 52A and 52B.
and especially Sammut (q.v.), who gives the best-documented reconstruction of the 37 For Pizolpasso’s letter see Text 37. By seeking Pizolpasso’s intervention with Duke
events as well as the older bibliography. Humfrey, Decembrio evidently alienated Rolando Talenti, who had been hoping to win
I he chronology at this point is nor clear, and it seems to me both possible and glory for himself with the prince by presenting him with Decembrio’s version. Decem­
ble that Decembrio thought ol dedicating the Republic to Humphrev even before he brio’s letter seeking to mollify Talenti is given in Text 52C.
had translated Book V for Amidano: the attempts to refute the: criticisms of Aristotle 38 The unedited portion of the correspondence between Decembrio and Altonso is
might then be seen as Decembrio's attempt to dispel the traditional suspicion of Plato’s given below, Texts 52D-N. Decembrio’s dissatisfaction that the patronage of Alfonso had
political views in order to prepare the ground for his new version. only amounted to a single Spanish mule can be interred from the letter ot Pizolpasso to
 126 P A R T II MI LAN 127

Irt 1438 the represen tatio n s of T a le n ti and Pizolpasso bore fruit, and tam perings w ith the text. D ecem b rio ’s circum stances, on the other hand,
D ecem brio got to work on the tran slatio n in earnest. T o w ard s the end dictated that he translate only the Republic, and all of the Republic. His
of 1438 o r the b eginning of 1439 he sent H u m p h rey a m an u scrip t co n ­ theory of translation m an d ated a close if not a literal rendition of the text.
taining his version of Books T V . By J u n e of 1439 he was able to a n ­ H is fa th e r’s translation, an extrem ely literal version, was (as Pier Can-
nounce in a letter to H u m p h re y the com pletion of the en tire work, and dido had discovered to his dism ay)39*quite well know n, and would have
finally in J u n e of 1440 a beautifully b o u n d and illum inated m anuscript m ade obvious any great liberties he m ight take w ith the text. T h e most
of the ten books, w ritten in an elegant Italian h and, was en trusted to the notorious doctrines of the Republic were also well know n from patristic
M ilanese am b assad o r S caram uccia Balbo for conveyance to the D uke. and m edieval sources. So unlike B runi, D ecem brio was unable to evade
O nly after the arrival of the m an u scrip t in E ngland in 1441 did D ecem ­ the worst obstacles to m aking Plato acceptable to fifteenth-century ears.
brio begin to learn the lesson of perfidious A lbion th at B runi had learned D ecem b rio ’s difficulties in presenting Plato w ere com pounded by the
five years before. D ecem brio received ex trav ag an t praise and prom ises assum ptions underlying “ doctrinal re a d in g ’’, which have been discussed
of favor from the D uke, but it rem ain s a m a tte r of d o u b t w hether he ever in the In tro duction. O nly those authors w ere deem ed to be useful who
received a single farthing from him in recom pense for h i^ th re e years of w ere wise and virtuous, full of useful in form ation, and not contradictory
learijied labor. to the C h ristian faith. For D ecem brio these assum ptions would have
been strongly reinforced by the exigencies of patronage. A ny failure to
m ake his Plato conform to expectations w ould raise fears in his patrons
Such in outline is the story o f D ecem b rio ’s translation of the Republic. But and set w agging the sharp tongues of rival hum anists; his very livelihood
these facts do not reveal a great deal ab o u t the m otives and concerns of could be threatened. T o a hu m an ist a translation or com m entary on an
D ecem brio and his patro n s in m aking the Republic available to the L atin a u th o r, no less than an original work, was a valuable piece of property,
W est. N or do they tell us how D ecem brio read his Plato or how he tried to be invested in the patron who prom ised the greatest rew ards of wealth,
to present him to his L atin -sp eak in g audience. For that we m ust look fu r­ fam e, and security. Since p atrons w ere few, and hum anists m any, com ­
ther not only in the prefaces and letters acco m panying the translation, petition was intense, even at tim es violent. M ost often it took the form
but hlso at the L atin version itself a n d the glosses com posed by D ecem ­ of direct attacks on rivals and their works, b u t som etim es, m ore rarely,
brio to explain the text. it could extend to attacks upon the au th o rity of a riv al’s special author.
Dfecembrio’s chief in terest, at least at first, was sim ply to find a p atron M o reover, professional groups and institutions had vested interests in the
for his literary studies, and this desire d ictated in large m easure his choice au th o rity of certain texts and authors to a degree that it is difficult to
of the Republic as a suitable w ork to tran slate. W ishing as he did to sup­ u n d erstan d today. T h e prestige of university arts faculties and their
plant B runi as D uke H u m p h re y ’s literary protege, he was obliged to find g rad u ates depended largely on the high rep u tatio n of A ristotle; that of
a w ork at once as fam ous and as a p p ro p ria te to a royal p atron as B ru n i’s
version of A risto tle’s Politics had been. M oreover, his lim ited knowledge 39 In order to magnify his own powers as a Hellenist and to increase the market value
of G reek m eant that his choice was effectively restricted to works w hich of his work, Decembrio even went so far as to attempt, first, to conceal the existence ot
his father’s translation (Text 43), then, when that proved impossible, to disguise the ex­
had previously been tran slated . T h e only w ork which fit the case was tent of his dependence on it. Decembrio was clearly discomfited to discover that not only
P la to ’s Republic. was Duke Humfrey’s agent, Zenone Castiglione, aware of the earlier translation (see
T h e choice of P la to ’s Republic, how ever, presented D ecem brio w ith above), but that his prospective patron in Basel, Alfonso Garcia of Cartagena, even had
a copy of it in his library (see Text 521). So a marginal note, written by his estranged
considerable difficulties. B ru n i’s m astery of G reek and his theory of brother Angelo into a codex of Pier Candido’s letters (Valladolid, Bibl. de Santa Cruz,
translation had enabled him to choose ap p ro p ria te works from am ong the MS 325, f. 59r), may not be without justice: “ Non erubescis, homo nefandissime, patri
dialogues, ad ju stin g them w here necessary to suit the prejudices of his tuo qui te genuit et educauit laudem sue posteritatis eripere? quern scis totum Policie
librum e Greco in Latinum transtulisse, et post obitum eius Grecum una cum Latino
readers. Except in the case of the Phaedo, he was not h am p ered by the apud te remansisse, cum adhuc nova traductio publicata non esset?” This codex has not
presence of o th er translations whose existence m ight have revealed his previously been identified as containing Angelo’s hand; tor other codices copied by him,
see P. Scarcia Piacentini, “ Angelo Decembrio e la sua scrittura,” Scnttura e civilta 4
(1980): 247-277. The rest of the Valladolid codex, probably written during Angelo s
Decembrio in the second svlloge of his letters, Book VIII, letter 3 (see Valladolid, Bibl. disastrous sojourn in Spain in 1450, has similar informative and damaging marginal
de Sdnta Cruz MS 325, If. 62r-63v). comments on Pier Candido.
128 P A R T II MI L A N 129

theologians and ecclesiastics on the au th o rity of'the V ulgate Bible, P eter Republic as unsuitable for tran slatio n ow ing to its questionable m orality.
Lorrfibard, and the great scholastic doctors. M edical doctors lauded the T h a t P ier C an d id o was stu n g by w hat B runi had said is plain from the
sapience of'G alen and H ippocrates ju st as the hum anists exalted the v ir­ harsh com m ents he w rote into Pope N icolas V ’s copy ol B ru n i’s Vita
tue and eloquence of C icero and V irgil. H ence attem pts to introduce new Aristotelis: “ Y o u ’re lying L eo n ard o — you d o n ’t u n d erstan d P la to .” 41
authors, especially ones who co ntradicted traditional au th o rs, som etim es P erhaps m ore im p o rtan t w ere D ecem b rio ’s rivals closer to hom e in the
m et|w ith a resistance com parable only, in m odern academ ic life, to the V isconti court. T h a t court was sharply divided into w arrin g factions of
introduction of new “ m ethodologies” or critical theo ries.40 If a p atron hum anists. O n one side w ere D ecem brio, C ato n e Sacco, the Franciscan
was not himself allied to one of these professional groups, he often had A ntonio da R ho, and L orenzo V alla. O n the o ther side was a party led
othdr proteges who were. A nd a p atro n , in choosing some work to favor, by the court poets, First A ntonio P an o rm ita w ith his friends A ntonio
sought not m erely to establish a rep u tatio n for generosity, but for taste, C rem o n a and Francesco M ecenati, and, after 1439, Francesco Filelfo,
understanding, public spirit and piety as well. T o have patronized a w ork D ecem b rio ’s bitterest en e m y .42 A nother enem y was A ntonio C re m o n a ’s
which had been bran d ed as incom petent, useless, or dangerous to public friend, the am bitious co u rtier U golino Pisano, a ju rist, poet, w riter of
m ores and religion would expose a p atro n to slander and ridicule— com edies, m usician, dancer, acto r— and a d o ctrinaire A ristotelian.
serious threats in an age w here so m uch depended on im age and personal Pisano was particularly dan g ero u s as he had the ear both of M ichele
gifts. Pizolpasso, the A rchbishop’s beloved nephew , and Z enone Castiglione,
C o n tem p o rary h erm eneutical assum ptions and the realities of who was D ecem b rio ’s chief link w ith D uke H u m p h rey ’s p atro n ag e.43*All
patrbnage help account both for the way D ecem brio chose to present and of these rivals were perfectly capable of lau n ch in g attacks on Pier C an-
interpret the Republic, and for the fears and criticism s of Plato expressed d id o ’s projects.
by p e c e m b rio ’s rivals and p atrons. D ecem b rio ’s most fam ous critic,
B runi— who was chief propag an d ist for a hostile pow er as well as a rival 41 In the margin of BAV, Vat. lat. 2096, f. 5v, next to the passage (quoted above, p.
for p u k e H u m p h re y ’s p a tro n a g e — had already in 1429 (as we have seen) 65) where Bruni attacked Plato’s doctrine of the common ownership of wives and goods,
Decembrio wrote, “ Mentiris Leonarde, nec Platonem intelligis.” See Zaccaria (1967),
com pared Plato unfavorably w ith A ristotle and had dism issed the
p. 527, n. 78. Bruni is also, probably, the aliquis and one of the indoctissimi quidam of Text
47, as would appear from several verbal parallels between these prefaces and the Vita
40 A clear consciousness of intellectual property is displayed by Pier Candido himself Aristotelis. For Decembrio’s defense of Plato’s doctrine in Republic V, see below, pp. 136
in a letter to Michele Pizolpasso attacking Michele’s friend Ugolino Pisano. Pisano, and 151 f.
being unable through his ignorance of Greek to defend Aristotle’s reading of the Republic 42 On the factionalism in the Visconti court, see especially Adam (q.v), volume 1;
adequately, had argued instead that the text of the Republic Decembrio had translated was Filelfo’s Epistolae (1502), and Resta, L ’Epistolario di Panormita (Messina, 1954), passim.
not ih fact the text referred to by Aristotle. Decembrio replied by insinuating sarcastically The fact that Decembrio’s chief opponents were poets may help explain his relative lack
that Ugolino was unwilling to accept the Republic because the Republic condemned of embarrassment at Plato’s attacks on poetry in the Republic. The parties at the Visconti
scholastics such as himself: “ Why then is this leprous dog barking at the moon? Is he court were somewhat more fluid than I have represented them; Panormita, for instance,
perhaps enraged at Plato because Plato thought know-it-alls [multiscii, Decembrio’s word left Milan for Naples already in 1434, but kept in contact with the Milanese circle by let­
for scholastics] should not be allowed into his polity, only persons educated in a single ter and continued his campaign against Decembrio, for example in putting Cassarincrup
art [i.e., philosophy]? If we call philosophers only those who are ignorant of grammar to retranslating the Republic (see below). Valla in the 1440s broke with Antonio da Rho
[i.e., not humanistically educated], then perhaps he is a philosopher.” In another letter, and grew cooler towards Decembrio. The animosity between Decembrio and Filelfo was
this lime to Michele’s uncle. Archbishop Pizolpasso, Decembrio takes Plato for his own a great constant; the latter regarded Pier Candido (whom he nicknamed “ Leucus” ,
author, and speaks of Jerome as belonging to clerics and religious persons (R 183, ed. “ paleface” ) as a mere fraud, and allied himself with Guarino in proving Decembrio’s
Fubini (1966), pp. 359-361): “ I wonder that you make so much of the opinion of a good ignorance of Greek. See, for example, the distichs “ In Eloquii Graeci Depravatores”
man [Alfonso Garcia] and let truth give place to friendship, yet (as Cicero said) in Filelfo composed against Decembrio and Poggio, in Rosmini, Vila di Francesco Filelfo da
disputation one ought to look to weight of argument rather than the authority of writers. Tolentino (Milan, 1808), 3:164:
You say our Bishop of Burgos agrees with you; I’d be astonished if he didn’t, since you Graecatur Leucus, graecatur Poggius una
defend and protect Jerome as the oldest member of your regiment__ [Decembrio con­ Cum linguam neuter noverit argolicam.
tinues: Jerome’s attack on Cato’s connubial mores was ill-founded; the only reason for At graios qua lege libros fecere latinos?
it w;ts spite.] For Jerome it was enough to be condemning the law—not Cato’s, but Graius id interpres praestitit auxilii.
Rome's—and to label everyone else as ignoramuses in order to recommend the religious 43 On Decembrio’s polemics with Ugolino, and the latter’s links with Michele, see
state and the Christian faith. If that is true, then not even Aristotle should be allowed Zaccaria (1975); for his links with Zenone, see Zaccaria (1959). Michele had also been
m, of- any other learned men, all of whom Jerome labels as ignoramuses.” See Antonio put under ties of obligation by Panormita and Antonio Cremona. See now J. P. Perry,
da Rho s In Laclantium, discussed below, p. 148f., for further examples of this con­ “ A Fifteenth Century Dialogue on Literary Taste: Angelo Decembrio’s Account of
sciousness. Playwright Ugolino Pisani at the Court of Leonello d’Este” RQ 39 (1986): 613-643.
 130 P A R T II MI LAN 131

M oreover, D ecem brio needed to ease the qualm s of at least some of confusion? O f w hat use is such obscure and disorganized doctrinal H ad
his patrons. W e know n o th in g o f any objections to D ecem b rio ’s project D ecem brio possessed m ore of the ancient expository tradition of Plato,
from D uke H u m p h re y or the D uke of M ilan , but Bishop Alfonso G arcia he m ight have had some help in overcom ing this objection, b ut this tra d i­
and A rchbishop Pizolpasso, conferring to gether at the C ouncil of Basel, tion w ould only begin to be recovered, in Italy, in the second half of the
had serious reservations ab o u t the advisability of a L atin Republic. A lfon­ fifteenth c e n tu ry .47 In the 1430s the reduction of Plato to suitable text­
so, though a canon law yer, h ad been train ed in the scholastic fashion as book form presented D ecem brio with a difficult challenge.
an A ristotelian; he w orried ab o u t P la to ’s obscurity and im m orality, and A m ore serious obstacle still was the charge that Plato had taught
actively discouraged D ecem brio from in stitu ting com parisons betw een im m oral doctrines. T he chief target of this charge in the M iddle Ages
Plajo and A ristotle— fearing, p erhaps, that (com ing at least from Decem- was the passages in Book V of the Republic where Plato m akes Socrates
brip) these m ight not tu rn out to A risto tle’s a d v an tag e.44 Pizolpasso’s advocate a system of com m on ow nership ot wives, children, and posses­
scholastic culture, on the o th er h an d , was superficial. H e was rath er, like sions, as well as other outlandish doctrines. As we have seen in the
T ra v e rsa ri, an early exam ple of that “ C h ristian h u m a n ism ’’ which In tro d u ctio n , this criticism had a long history, from A ristotle him self to
hoped for reform of C h ristian ity through a retu rn to the Fathers. Indeed, the Fathers of the C hurch, to medieval com m entaries on A ristotle and
it would seem that his great m otive in recom m ending D ecem brio to D uke textbooks of canon law. W ith the fifteenth century, how ever, a further
H u m p h rey was the hope that the latter would encourage D ecem brio, threat appeared to P lato ’s reputation as a m oralist w hen hum anists
after he had finished w ith the Republic, to go on to translate “ higher through their knowledge of G reek gained access to the occasional
th ip g s” , by w hich he m ean t the G reek F ath ers of C h u rc h .45 D ecem b rio ’s passages in the dialogues describing scenes of hom osexual gallantry. In
use of his Platonic studies to co u n ter criticism s of Plato m ade by Jero m e M ilan these passages were, apparently, first alluded to by P anorm ita,
and L actantius deeply d istu rb ed him , and for m onths he sought fruitless­ who in the prefatory letters to his Hermaphrodite enthusiastically em ­
ly, in his p atern al way, to b rin g D ecem brio to recognize the im prescrip- braced Plato as an authority for his own tastes.48*T h e Hermaphrodite had
tab(e au th o rity of J e ro m e .46 Since the com m onest sources of literary touched off a considerable controversy in M ilan in 1429-32 about the
patro n ag e in the fifteenth cen tu ry rem ain ed ecclesiastical, and since degree of m oral license perm itted to C h ristian authors; one of Panor-
Pizolpasso was the likeliest person to bestow such patro n ag e on Pier C an- m ita ’s chief opponents had been D ecem brio’s great friend A ntonio da
dido, it was vital th at the latter m ain tain his rep u tatio n as a serious
C h ristian . 47 See Part III. The exception to this rule was the Timaeus, which had been provided
with an elaborate system of commentaries and glosses by Calcidius and a number ot
T h e obstacles D ecem b rio ’s rivals an d patro ns raised to the Republic’s
twelfth- and thirteenth-century masters. Decembrio’s Greek manuscript ot the Republic
natu ralizatio n in the L atin W est m ay be reduced to three heads. T h e first probably possessed a certain number ot scholia, as he made occasional use ot them in
was the charge that P la to ’s teaching was “ disorderly ”: th at his doctrine composing his marginalia; see the apparatus jontium to Text 51.
48 See the letter to Poggio edited by F. C. Forbergius, Antonu Panormitae Hermaphroditus
is pever clearly expounded b u t is h idden u n d er the personae of in ­
(Coburg, 1824), p. 7: “ Nam ipsum philosophorum principem Platonem, non quidem
terlocutors who contrad ict each oth er while seem ing each to propose doc­ Christianum hominem, sed qui deum non ignoraverit, immo unum deum servaverit,
trines which were partly sound and partly vicious. At the sam e tim e Plato ceteros vero angelos vel daemones dixerit, constat versus et quidem petulantes fecisse in
Astera, in Alexim, in Phaedrum pueros [vid. Apuleius, De Deo Soc. 164; Diog. Laert.
had; not, like A ristotle, divided his works according to any obvious pat-
IU .2 9 = Anth. Pal. 7.669-670], item de Dione Svracusano, et generaliter versus eius non
terris, either per species or quoad gradus audientium: a w orthy auctor surely nisi molles et amatorias extitisse, e quibus hos tantum hoc loco commemorem, quamvis
ought not to w rite thus, for how is the teacher to present such m aterial aliquanto licentius, ut ait Gellius [XIX. 11], liberiusque ex Graeco in Latinum conversos.
Tu Platonem lepidissimum poetam audi, audi, inquam Platonem, poetam lepidissi-
clearly to his stu den ts, and how m ay a student com m it to m em ory such
mum” Panormita then quotes in its entirety the (probably pseudo-Platonic) love-poem
from Gellius X I X .ll, also preserved in Macrobius, Saturn. 2.2. The letter to Poggio is
44 See Text 52H, line 39f. Even alter Decembrio had dedicated Book VI to Alfonso dated to April of 1426, Bologna, by R. Sabbadini, Ottanta lettere inedile del Panormita
and had given him a splendid copy of the entire work, Alfonso still diplomatically avoided (Catania, 1910), p. 12. It was excluded from Panormita’s epistolano but is found, together
telling Decembrio whether he thought Plato or Aristotle the more useful auctor, see Text with two letters from Poggio and Guarino, in many codices of the Hermaphroditus, serving
52L, line 18f. in effect as a prefatory epistle. For Decembrio's hostility to the Hermaphroditus and to
4,i See Text 37. Panormita’s exposure of Plato’s amorous verse, see Resta, L Epistolano di A. Panormita,
"’ The exchanges are found in Book VIII of the second sylloge of Decembrio’s letters, pp. 177-181, and below, p. 134. Guarino also translated the distich to Aster, but per­
preserved in Rice. 827, Seville, Columbina MS 7.4.20, and Valladolid, Bibl. de Santa formed a sex-change operation on it by which the boy Aster became “ puella Stella : see
Gru? .VIS 325; some have been edited in Paredi (q.v.) and Fubini (1966). Hankins (1987b). '
 132 P A R T II MI LAN 133

R h o .+9 So through the Hermaphrodite m ost of D ecem brio’s potential au- hum anistic script by a professional scribe, -and decorated with elegant in­
diejnce w ould have heard of P la to ’s rep u tatio n for hom osexuality. itials in blue, gold, and red. T hese features w ould n atu rally be taken as
T h e third obstacle D ecem brio had to circum navigate before presenting signs that the text was of particu lar value. O p e n in g the book, he would
Plato to his L atin audience was the d an g er presented by P lato ’s have encountered in the first folios a series of epistles exchanged between
theological views, which frustrated both friendly and hostile scholars by a m ighty (if barbaric) prince, D uke H u m p h re y , the A rchbishop of
seem ing at one tim e to reinforce C h ristian ity and at an o th er to u n d e r­ M ilan, and the tran slato r— m arks that the book h ad found acceptance in
m ine it. D ecem brio was aw are of the ancient opinion that Plato was the the highest circles of church and state. A fter these cam e a table of con­
most sublim e of philosophers and knew also the patristic belief that his tents listing the ten books, each of which D ecem brio fu rth er subdivided
philosophy was the closest of all the pagan philosophies to C hristianity. into ch ap ters.51 T o each book and chapter n u m b e r was added a short
Q u o tin g Plato, he criticised the scholastic philosophers for following su m m ary of the “ d o ctrin e” expounded th erein , a practice repeated w ith­
A verroes’ ju d g m e n t about A ristotle ra th e r than the ancient authorities in the text itself. Each book was further provided w ith its own dedicatory
whp said he was inferior to P la to .50 H is critics replied with the usual preface, Books I-IV and V II-IX being given to D uke H um phrey, and
argum ents against Plato: that he had believed in the transm igration of Books V , V I, and X respectively to G iovanni A m ideo, Alfonso of C a r­
souls, the eternal existence of prim e m atter, and went on to intone the tagena, and Francesco Pizolpasso. Between Books V and VI D ecem brio
usual litany of antiplatonism , w hich we have described already in the In ­ inserted as well a brevis annotatio show ing how each book of the Republic
troduction. M any of these theological issues, to be sure, did not arise in m ight allegorically be associated with a decade of h u m a n life. Finally, the
the Republic, so that D ecem brio was spared the task of w orking out a full interlocutors in the dialogue were indicated in rubrics (they are om itted
defense of P la to ’s theology; nevertheless, som e passages in Book X did in the G reek) and the text was provided w ith a copious store of m arginal
generate certain frictions with C h ristian belief which D ecem brio needed notes in the h and of the copyist which D ecem brio clearly intended to be
sorfiehow to m ask. But in the end, as we shall see, D ecem brio felt him self transcribed into each copy as a p erm an en t a p p a ra tu s for reading the
lesS constrained than some later in terp reters would be to C hristianize te x t.52*
corhpletelv his Plato. T h e effect of this app aratu s of prefaces, letters, arg u m en ts, rubrics and
m arg in alia was to produce a sort of fram e to regulate the re a d e r’s percep­
* * *
tion of the text. Som e elem ents of the text w ere em phasized, others hid­
T o defend him self and his P lato from the attacks of critics, then, Decem - den, am biguities resolved or created anew , in terp retatio n s put forward
brip adopted several strategies. O n e was sim ply to flail away ad hominem or dism issed, all in an attem p t to m old the text to the expectations of the
in the approved hum anistic fashion: his opponents were m alignant, ig­ reader. From the first preface to the end of the volum e the reader is con­
n o ran t, vicious, and base while he for his part acted from the purest tinually rem inded of the w eightiness of P la to ’s w isdom , of the range and
devotion to tru th . A nother was to question his o p p o n en ts’ authorities and fruitfulness of his learning, and of his o u tstan d in g m oral and intellectual
assum ptions, a strategy to w hich we shall shortly retu rn . H ere we m ust virtues. H is literary skill an d elegance is beyond com pare: “ I c a n ’t
exam ine a th ird , and in the present context the most im p o rtan t, strategy rem em b er having read anything sw eeter or m ore choice!” writes D ecem ­
D ecem brio adopted: that of p resen tin g and in terp retin g P lato ’s work in brio at 607C 9; “ See the m arvelous pro p riety of his d ictio n !” at 349B
such a way as to m axim ize his co n tem p o rary appeal and to silence 11. T o the reader w orried about reports of P la to ’s “ tu rp itu d e ” , D ecem ­
criticism . brio repeatedly points out that A ristotle, L actan tiu s and Jero m e were
A read er who took dow n from the shelf the dedication copy of D ecem- w rong to condem n Plato, and that in reality Plato had recom m ended the
b rip ’s translation would have m et w ith an object differing im portantly
from the bare G reek text of the dialogue. H e would see in the first place 51 The division into capitula and the rubrication of the interlocutors was suggested to
Decembrio by Bishop Alfonso Garcia, who recommended it as a way of clarifying Plato’s
a ciodex richly bound in tooled leather, w ritten in a clear round doctrina\ see Text 521.
52 Some impression of the way Decembrio presented the text of the Republic may be
11 I'or this controversy, see L. Barozzi-R. Sabbadini. Studi sul Panormita e sul Valla gained from Texts 37-51, all of which usually accompany those codices produced by
( Molencc, 1891) and R. Sabbadini, Ottanta lettere inedite di Panormita', tor Antonio da Rho’s Decembrio’s scriptorium. In the analysis that follows I have relied primarily on the
participation see R. Fubini in D P ! 8:574-577. marginalia Decembrio inscribed in Alfonso of Cartagena’s copy of the translation, which
" See Text 52 P are the fullest; these are edited in Text 51; see also App. 7.
 134 P A R T II MI LAN 135

com m on ow nership of wives, children, and goods only in the case of the and spending; he shows the ill effects of teaching the arts of disputation
class o f gu ard ian s, and u n d e r conditions strictly controlled by the prince; to the im m atu re, which was, in his view, a m istaken practice of contem ­
P la to ’s schem e was in fact, D ecem brio suggests, a device to regulate p orary universities.
m ore closely the m oral conduct of the aristocracy and to m ake them m ore B runi, following, perhaps, St. A u g u stin e’s Contra Academicos, had com ­
devoted to the public good. Elsew here he assim ilates the com m on ow ner­ plained that Socrates in the Platonic dialogues w andered from topic to
ship of goods to the com m u n ism of the early church, an apologetic move topic w ithout any order to his teaching, unlike A ristotle who gave his
later em ployed by F icin o .53 P a n o rm ita ’s suggestion th at Plato had al­ pupils a com plete education from the very rudim ents to the most advanc­
lowed sexual license an d perv ersio n is vigorously resisted: next to a ed subjects. D ecem brio’s reply to this criticism , found in the “ Brevis an-
bow dlerized passage at 402D 10 D ecem brio exclaims: “ See here, Panor- n o ta tio ” , was that Plato had indeed provided a clear and detailed order
m ita, w hat Plato really m eans by love of boys!” in his teaching, such that each of the ten books of the Republic provided
T!he Republic, the read er is led to see, is a continuous exhortation to v ir­ instruction for each of the ten decades of h u m an life:
tue, a m ine of useful inform ation an d wise advice on education and the
For to pass over with what eloquence and weighty utterance he has traced
adm in istratio n of the state. T o m ake the case for the w ork’s contem ­ from the cradle (as I might say) the whole teaching and power of philoso­
porary relevance, D ecem brio identifies m an y parallels betw een fifteenth- phy, who does not marvel at the scrupulous attention he pays to the smallest
cent|ury E u ro p ean society an d the w orld o f the Republic. T h e w ar of the details, distinguishing each thread, as it were, and explaining everything
virtuous Platonic state against its rich neighbors (422B 3) is com pared to according to a special order? Surely—to begin with things our minds are
less accustomed to consider in admiration of the greatest things—surely it
M ila n ’s w ar against V enice, the sophists are com pared to contem porary is obvious that the body and fabric of the present work is divided into a
preachers an d scholastic philosophers (493C 10, 454A-B), P la to ’s G reeks series of ten books in an imitation of and likeness to the span of our lives?54
and b arb arian s are identified w ith Italian s and transalpine E uropeans
(4 7 IB 8), the p auperism ch aracteristic of the oligarchic constitution is Indeed, seeing P lato ’s text only through the herm eneutical gear of
assim ilated to p auperism in M ilan (552A 7). T h e text of the Republic arg u m en ts, chapter headings, and m arginalia with which D ecem brio had
becom es a stick to beat the c o rru p t an d w icked, especially the Pope, the festooned his translation, it could hardly have occurred to most readers
R o m an curia, the French, law yers an d doctors, the nobility, and the to d oubt that P lato ’s teaching was anything other than careful, orderly,
friars ( “ R ead this, silly little fria r!” w rites D ecem brio next to a passage and com plete.
w here Plato says, “ O p in io n w ithout know ledge is b lin d ” ). T h ro u g h Like B runi and the B yzantine hum anists before him , D ecem brio is
Plato D ecem brio attacks im m oral p o etry — perhaps w ith his rivals P anor- eager to establish the usefulness of his studies by pointing out places
m ita and Filelfo in m in d — ; he excoriates the bourgeois spirit of getting w here Plato had anticipated C hristian dogm as. In the preface to Book X
he writes:
53 See Texts 43, 48, and 51, at 428E 3, 458B 9, C6, D8, 461A 3, etc. In Text 52P Although Plato repeatedly declared and dealt with many pious and holy
(a letter written at Ferrara in 1467), Decembrio does his best to minimize the matters in the previous books, in this book, as I believe, so towering is his
outrageousness of Plato’s doctrine on this point, arguing that it was basically a safeguard wisdom that he seems to have surpassed not only all other philosophers, but
against aristocratic factionalism and prepotenza: “ When therefore Plato had established even himself. Indeed, he not only proves the immortality of the soul by
these matters in the best possible way, he laid it down that the guardians should have reason and arguments, but also describes most piously and faithfully the
no legal property, but should live in common and be supported by the people, whence delights of paradise and the sufferings of hell, even the resurrection. What
he called them the ‘guardians of the people’ and the people he called ‘the sustainers of can I say of the weightiness and holiness of his utterances? No one could
the guardians’. Them [the guardians] he permitted to have common wives and children,
express evangelical doctrines in a more divine and holy manner than he has
not that they should abuse them in a promiscuous fashion, as Lactantius and other rather
ignorant persons have thought, but in order that good parents might give birth to better done in some passages.55
offspring—since they would have relations only at the command of the prince—and in
order to prevent them from violently seizing things from the community ’’ In an earlier
letter to Archbishop Pizolpasso (ed. Zaccaria [1959], p. 200 = Rice. 827, f. lOlv),
Deceimbrio had compared the common ownership of goods to the life of the saints: “ He 34 Text 44. The allegorical interpretation where books of the Republic correspond to the
bade the guardians ol the city live in common like the saints, possessing nothing, and decades of human life is perhaps modelled on Fulgentius’ well-known interpretation ol
laid it down that the prince should give them wives as rewards for their virtue, with no the Aeneid (Expositio Vergilianae continentiae)', the optimistic life-span ol 100 years comes
admixture ol shamelulness. ” Note also Decembrio's changes in the translation itself, dis­ from Rep. 615B.
cussed below. 55 Text 49.
136 P A R T II MI LAN 137

T he m arginalia too are used to reinforce P la to ’s rep u tatio n for holiness. [Let] women of this kind be possessed jointly by the guardian men, and
children as well, and let no wife live separately from them .58
In ofie place, D ecem brio says, the A th en ian speaks with the voice of the
Apostle Paul. In Book V I and elsew here the Form of the G ood is id en ­ At 4 6 IB Plato says,
tified with G od, and in the preface to Book III P la to ’s theory of But when, I think, women and men have passed the age of procreation, we
knowledge is assim ilated to the A u g u stin ian doctrine of illum ination. In shall of course let the men be free to have sexual intercourse with whomever
the rubric of Book X , C h a p te r IX he appears to find the doctrine of they please, except daughters, mothers, and their direct descendants and
original sin; at 451A4 the G reek ’ASpaaxeia, N em esis, is identified with ascendants, and the women also, except with sons and fathers and their
the fa ll of M an . T h ro u g h o u t the notes Plato is praised as m uch for his ascendants and descendants; and all this only after we have exhorted them
to be careful if possible not to bring to the light any offspring, if it is con­
holiriesss as for his w isdom and v irtu e .56 ceived, and if it should force its way out [into the light], to deal with it [a
D ecem brio’s textual a p p a ra tu s w ent far tow ards helping to naturalize euphemism meaning to “ dispose of it” ] in the knowledge that there will be
Plato in fifteenth-century C h risten d o m , but it could not solve all the no rearing for such births.—This is reasonable, he said, but how will
problem s of m aking the Republic acceptable to the W est. In Book V fathers and daughters and the other relations you just described recognize
each other?—They won’t at all, I said, but all male children born in the
especially Plato describes the life of his perfect com m unity in term s which
seventh and the tenth month after the day he became a bridegroom a man
are highly resistant to C h ristian izin g glosses. In addition to the com m on will call his sons, and all female children his daughters.... Those born
ow nership of w om en, children and goods, Plato lays it dow n that during the time when their parents were engaged in begetting children will
children are p o t to know their own p aren ts, but are to be raised in state become brothers and sisters, so that, as we just said, they will not have
day-care centers; defective births are to be secretly exposed. H e says that unions with each other; but the law will permit brothers and sisters to
cohabit, if so the lot turns out, and the Delphic oracle approves.59
after m en and w om en of the g u ard ian class have passed the age of p ro ­
creation, they are to be p erm itted to form w hatever non-incestuous In D ecem b rio ’s version the allusions to abortion and infanticide are
liaisons they please; indeed, u n d e r certain circum stances even brothers m ade obscure, and the whole passage is tu rn e d into a prohibition of in ­
and pisters are allowed to cohabit, and the offspring of these unofficial cest. In a m anuscript w ritten for Alfonso of C artag en a, he even adds a
relationships are sim ilarly to be disposed of. Plato expresses him self in note exclaim ing, “ R ead this, you who condem n Socrates for sham e­
favor of the equality of the sexes, even to the point of p erm ittin g w om en lessness!” 60
to fight alongside m en in battle; ab o rtio n and hom osexual practices are
Husbands are permitted to cohabit with whomever except daughters and
casually m entioned as though they were norm al features of society. A mothers and their ascendants and descendants, and wives too, except with
C hristian read er who had read D ec e m b rio ’s boasts of P la to ’s “ holiness” sons and fathers and their ascendants and descendants. And after we have
m ight have at first been disposed to accept them at face value, b ut surely enjoined these things, we shall lay it down especially that no births of this
after reading such m onstrous doctrines as these he w ould realize that sort are to be brought to light, and that no offspring, if there is a rape,
Plato could never be p erm itted to becom e the teacher of a C h ristian should receive nourishment.—These are moderate remarks, I daresay. But
fathers and daughters and the relations you were just speaking of: how-will
society? they be able to recognize each other?—If they are born in the tenth or
In fact he m ight very well not, for D ecem brio rendered all of these seventh month from the day when any of them was married, all of these
passages am biguous or innocuous th ro u g h willful m istranslation and he will call his children, the males sons and the females daughters. Those
even excision. W here Plato says, who were born during the period their fathers were procreating shall be
brothers and sisters, so that they do not have relations, though brothers and
luet [there be a law that] these women all be common to these men, and sisters are allowed to dwell together if the lot falls out and the Delphic oracle
that no woman cohabit with a man in private; and let their children be like­ approves.61
wise common, and let no parent know its own offspring, nor any child his
parent,57

D ecem brio has onlv

58 See App. 9.
59 Rep. 461B-E; the Greek text is given in App. 9.
56 Text 51, at 389D7. 402D10, E6, 403A7. B4, etc. 60 Text 51, at 461 B9.
:’7 Rep. 457D; the Greek text is given in App. 9. fil See App. 9.
 138 P A R T II MI LAN 139

In like m an n er, passages w here Plato alludes to hom osexual practices or h an d , betw een points raised by interlocutors for the sake of discussion
the equality o f females with males D ecem brio bow dlerizes or interprets an d real Platonic “ d o ctrin a” on the other. T h e same effect is produced
aw ay .b2 by the continual effort to find exam ples o f o u tstan d in g m oral conduct,
advice on m ores, and gems of m oral uplift. It is a considerable irony that
* * *
the very sorts of in terpretation Plato him self criticized in teachers of
C ensorship is not the only tool D ecem brio possesses for doing aw ay with H o m e r— the text as tribal encyclopedia and the text as a locus of
undesirable m eanings in the Republic. H e also makes use of the entire im itatio n — are the sorts practiced by D ecem brio and o ther fifteenth-
panoply of ancient and m edieval herm eneutical techniques in his effort cen tu ry readers on the text of Plato him self.64
to arrive at a satisfactory in terp retatio n of the text. H e und ertak es to p ro ­ A m ore pow erful herm eneutical technique is provided by w hat m ay be
vide the read er with a skeletal “ histo rical” in terp retatio n (historia) of the called the figural in terp retatio n , where the in terp reter identifies a figure
Republic, that is to say, he takes up to som e degree the trad itio n al task of th o ught or trope which has been used to alter the literal m eaning ol
of ddctrinal read in g of explaining m atters alluded to in the text such as the text. O ften this m ay involve no m ore than identifying the rhetorical
place nam es, persons, etym ologies, m ythology, events, political and devices used by the au thor, but som etim es D ecem brio uses it to give
m ilitary in stitutions, etc., with a view to b uilding up the re a d e r’s general him self g reater latitude in affixing the desired m eaning to a passage. In
know ledge. T h o u g h this w ould hardly count as an in terp retatio n in the certain passages he found m orally offensive, for instance (such as the one
m odern sense, it does tend to produce a type of reading that is atem poral, w here Socrates perm its victorious w arriors to kiss the boy of their
presen t-m in d ed , insensitive to levels of m eaning, and d eaf to the dif­ choice), D ecem brio was able to show that these were m erely ironice or
ferences betw een interlocutors. D ecem brio, to be sure, is too facete posita.656T h e identification of “ figure allegories” ,56 a com m on task
sophisticated an in te rp re te r to m isread consistently in this way; his of doctrinal reading, was also at times useful. D ecem brio uses this tech­
readings of the Republic repo rted in A ntonio da R h o ’s In Lactantium, nique sparingly, but on occasion finds it indispensable. In Book X , for
w hich we shall discuss shortly, show that he was capable of w orking out instance, where P lato ’s m yth of the afterlife m ight be thought dangerous­
a fairly sophisticated in terp retatio n of P lato 's m arital com m unism ly un o rth o d o x , D ecem brio assures the reader that “ this part is intended
thro u g h a careful exam in atio n of context and parallel passages.63 But in a m ystical sense, and was understood by Plato otherw ise than in its
there are also m any occasions w hen the h u n t for inform ation an d dicta literal sen se.” At 580B 9 D ecem brio identifies “ the son of A riston” as
blinds him to the stages of the arg u m e n t, o r to the difference, on the one an aenigma for Plato (though in fact G laucon is referred to); this enables
him to p u t an im p o rtan t m oral dictum into the m outh of Plato, thus
giving it greater authority. D ecem brio even uses a ru d im en tary kind of
’’’ Bowdlerization is systematic, e.g., at 457A6, 458D2. 468B12-C4, 474D5 f. (with a Allegorese in his Brevis annotatio, where, as we have seen, he interprets each
note reading “ On licit love among the ancient Greeks” ). Passages suggesting the equali­ book of the Republic as an educational program for the ten decades ol
ty of the sexes are obscurely translated, and surrounded with marginalia such as ones
reading (455B ff.), “ Natural differences” ; “ Women's work” ; “ Woman is weaker than h u m a n life. T h e purpose here, however, was not massively to subvert the
man in all things"; “ Women's natures are different” , etc. See Text 51. See also Decem­ textual surface, as in L a n d in o ’s use of allegoresis, b ut ra th e r to suggest
brio’s translation of the Lysis (App. 8C) for the most high-handed example of his
th at the Republic was as system atic in its way as B runi had claim ed A risto­
bowdlerizations. There are numerous other passages where Decembrio has softened
some of Plato’s rough edges, but it is often difficult to tell whether he made these changes tle ’s Politics to be.
intentionally or not. For Decembrio’s ineptness in rendering the philosophical content T h e m ost powerful in stru m en t of all for m olding a re a d e r’s perception
of Plato’s thought, see the works cited in note 26; Hankins (1986), appendix; and the of a text m ay well be the m odern technique of identifying a set of
passages of Book V discussed in App. 9. Some additional passages in the Republic where
Decembrio has seriously misunderstood Plato’s arguments are at 454A4 (on dialectic), logically-consistent doctrines as P lato ’s “ basic ideas” , and applying
472C4 (zapdSetypa translated indifferently as exemplum and exemplar), 476A4 and 507B5 those basic ideas rigorously throughout the text to determ ine the m ean­
(doctrine of participation misrepresented; see also Decembrio’s note ad loc.), 508B9 et
passim (where xi ovxa is read as tot aXr|9d><; ovxa instead of as equivalent to xa Ttpaypata
and vice versa), etc. See also the telling philosophical blunder noted below in App. 8B. 64 See E. Havelock, A Preface to Plato (Princeton, 1963).
See below, p. 148f. One reason why Alfonso of Cartagena wanted Decembrio to Text 51, e.g, at 338D1, 345E4, 372D4, 403E7, etc. Aenigma and ironta are species
supply the names of interlocutors before each speech was his fear that Thrasvmachus’ doc- of allegoria according to most ancient anti medieval handbooks ol rhetoric, tor example
Irimi would be mistaken for Plato’s; Alfonso asks Decembrio to imagine how Duke Hum­ Donatus’ Barbansmus', see H. Keil. Gramrnatici latim (Leipzig, 1884), 4:367-402.
phrey might be led into “ dangerous error” bv such a confusion. See Text 521, lines 81 ff. 66 As opposed to Allegorese; see Introduction, p. 23.
 140 P A R T II MI LAN 141

ing of questionable passages. But despite the array of herm eneutical there is no species of government, if seems, to be preferred to the
devices at his disposal, it cannot be said th at D ecem brio succeeds in pro- timocratic; it is in fact what Plato asserts to have been the form of govern­
ducih g thus a coherent, synoptical in te rp re ta tio n of the Republic, w hich, ment in use among the Cretans and Lacedaemonians. When any man
eager for honor and victory seizes power, and does not bring violence or
indeed, would hardly have been co n g ru en t with the h erm eneutical goals death to anyone, but fights nobly and protects the commonwealth with care
of the period. N evertheless, there are certain elem ents of a b ro ad er in te r­ and distinction, he generates praise for himself and utility for his country,
pretation which suggest that D ecem brio reflected on the im plications of just as Lucius Brutus did among the Romans, and many centuries ago the
P lato ’s political thought and on the difficulties of applying it to the co n ­ extraordinary kings, the founders of this magnificent city, did, who were
tem porary C h ristian w orld. Like his father, Pier C an d id o would use not so much concerned with acquiring wealth [surely a hit at the Floren­
tines] as they were mindful of glory and posterity, and thought all things
P lato ’s m orphology of constitutions as p ro o f that M ila n ’s “ tim o cratic” were to be subordinated to the [good of the] commonwealth. And later, in
constitution was superior to the oligarchic ones of her enem ies V enice our time the divine prince Giangaleazzo Visconti, the father of the present
and Florence. P la to ’s au th o rity is em ployed for this purpose both in the glorious and victorious Duke, did the same.08
De laudibus Mediolanensium urbis panegyncus of 1436, w ritten in reply to the
W here B runi had used A ristotle’s doctrine of corporeal and external
recent republication of B ru n i’s Laudatio Florentinae urbis, and in the lost
goods to defend the Florentine yearning for m oney and public honors,
Declamationes, which were intended as M ilanese co unterblast to Francesco
D ecem brio mixes Plato, Seneca and A ugustine to attack such worldly
B arb a ra 's A ristotelian defense of the V en etian constitution as an ideally
values, elevating instead the suprem e w orth of contem plation.
m ixed polity.07 In the Declamationes, the illegitim ate rule of the V isconti
was identified with the rule of P la to ’s philosopher king, while the V en e­ [Many think themselves indebted to God merely for having been born and
tian constitution was com pared to P la to ’s tim ocracy or dem ocracy. In the having enjoyed the beauties of nature], but, though I recognize that I am
deeply indebted to God for the blessings of nature, I am affected yet more
De laudibus, D ecem brio is m ore conservative; he argues that the M ilanese by those goods which are sought by the acuity and goodness alone of
constitution was identical with P la to ’s tim ocratic polity, but m aintains mind—supported by no external aids—by whose favor we not only gaze
that this is the best kind of regim e one m ay hope tor in this im perfect upon these visible objects, but, drawn on to higher things, we are made in
world: some sense participants in the divine nature. What does it profit to look
upon earth, sea, heaven, to marvel at the diverse regions, to enter unknown
But to carry forward what we set out to discuss, it is frequently inquired cities, to learn the manners of peoples, to investigate the sources and
whether a commonwealth is better ruled by the advice and authority of one mouth*: of rivers, if you neglect the founder and ruler of all these things,
man, or by the judgment of many. Plato of Athens, by far the best of all by whose gift an immortal soul has been vouchsafed to us, than which no
philosophers (as Cicero said), distinguished four kinds of government. One more divine or useful gift was given by God to the human race. There are68*
was the "honorable” , which he called by the Greek term ‘‘timocratic’.’; an­
other was "the rule of the few", or oligarchy; a third was the popular or
democratic, and a fourth was the [constitution] we both [Greeks and 68 Petri Candidi Decembris Opuscula histonca, ed. A. Butti et al., in RIS, n.s., vol. 20.1,
Latins| call "tyrannic” . Then he added a fifth one better than all of these, p. 1017: "Ceterum ut id quod dicere instituimus prosequamur, utrum igitur res publica
the "aristocratic” , but since it comes, like the phoenix, only once every 500 unius consilio atque autoritate, an plurium arbitrio aptius regatur, sepenumero quesitum
years, or rather never, we may omit it, and return to the rest. Now then, est. Plato atheniensis, philosophorum omnium, ut inquit Cicero, longe princeps, quadri-
fariam principatuum species [.nc] distinguit. Unam honorabilem, quam greco nomine
timocraticam appelat; aliam paucorum regentium, hanc oligarchiam; tertiam popularem
"7 For the Panegyncus, see Baron, Crisis (1966), p. 206f.; Baron (1968), pp. 152, 228, siue dimocraticam; quartam vero, quam communi vocabulo tvrannicam dicimus. Quin-
and above, note 31. Decembrio's Declamationes are unfortunately lost, but some of their tam deinde his prestantiorem omnibus adiicit aristocraticam; verum, cum ea non secus
contents are summarized in a letter of Alfonso of Cartagena (Text 52N). For Barbaro’s ac phenix quingentesimo semel anno vel potius nunquam extet in presentia, ommittatur,
later use of Plato's Laws (a work historically related to Aristotle’s Politics) to defend et ad incepta redeamus. Nulla igitur regnandi speties potior visa est quam timocratica;
Venice's "mixed constitution", see below, p. 183, note 36. For another "Venetian” ea nempe est quam apud Laconas [«c] et Cretensas [sic] viguisse Plato asserit. Cum vir
view o| the Republic, see the annotations of Guanno Veronese (Barbara's teacher) in quispiam honoris victorieque avidus principatum capit, non ut cuipiam violentiam aut
BAV. Reg. lat. 1131, discussed in Hankins (1987b). Pier Candido’s "signorial necem inferat, sed ut ingenue belligerando rempublicam diligenter et egregrie tuendo,
humanism" is most clearly expressed in a pair of letters he exchanged with Guarnerius sibi laudem, patrie vero utilitatem pariat, qualis apud Romanos Lucius Brutus, et multis
Castellioneus in the first svlloge of his Fpistolario, Book I ( = Milan. Bibl. Braidense MS ante nos seculis prestantissimi reges huius magnificentissime urbis conditores extiterunt,
A 11 XII. 16. t. l()r, one of which is edited by F. Maderna, "Una lettera inedita di qui non tarn opum acquisitione solliciti, quam glorie et posteritatis memores, omnia post
Guarnerio Castiglione a Pier Candido Decembrio." l.ibn c docurnenti, 4.1-2 (1978): 17-25) rempublicam habenda censuere; et proxime apud nos divus princeps Johannes Galeaz
Here Decembrio first advances the justifications of Filippo Maria's expansionist policies Vicecomes, huius incliti ac victoriossimi ducis pater. ” (This passage is clearly borrowed
whit h lie would later strengthen with authorities drawn from Plato's Republic. from a similar passage in Uberto Decembrio’s De republica libn IV\ see above, note 13.)
 142 P A R T II MI LAN 143

(hose who glory in riches, offices, and the other goods of fortune, and think N ext to this passage, D ecem brio wrote: “ Pier C andido took the title
Nothing more excellent than fame and republican government (potentia Celestial Polity from this place” .71 In the preface to the eighth book, he ex­
popularis), but such persons are far from a true and perfect felicity; they plains further. T h e un learn ed , he says, prefer A ristotle, but I think dif­
make for themselves not repose, but troubles, and with troubles life can in ferently when I rem em ber the opinion of C aesar, B rutus, V arro, Asinius
rto wise be blessed.69
Pollio, and especially “ o u r C ic e ro ” . C icero, in fact, not only called Plato
T his passage particularly shows us why the Republic was a m ore welcome the “ god of the philosophers” , but im itated him and quoted him . T his
text in M ilan than in the republics o f Florence and V enice. O ne m ay also very work, the Republic, he im itated in a work of his own of the same title,
see how the affinity betw een signorial h u m an ism and the older, con­ but for my part I do not believe C icero can be com pared to Plato.
tem plative hum anism of P etrarch and his M ilanese followers m ade them For (to pass over other matters) what princes of the city or soldiers ot the
m ore receptive to the Republic as a text w hich gave n o u rishm ent for the commonwealth among the famous Romans of old could Cicero place next
contem plative life. to the guardians of [Plato’s] city, as worthy of comparison with them? So
T hough eager in rhetorical contexts to use P la to ’s au th o rity to defend help me God, I do think Plato wanted to set out in words not a human but
the w orth of signorial rule, D ecem brio seems ultim ately to have felt a divine and celestial polity, to be sought not in fact but in prayer.7'2
him self unable to em ploy P la to ’s ideal state as a m odel for the contem ­ D ecem brio thus seems to regard the aristocratic polity of the Republic not
porary world. P lato ’s aristocratic polity of Books II through V II d e m a n d ­ as a b lueprin t for Italian society of the fifteenth century but as an inspir­
ed too m uch “ holiness” of its citizens to be a m odel for m odern Italy. ing ideal, alm ost a C ity of G od. T he virtues of the guardians, like the
How then should it be regarded? M u st A risto tle’s criticism s of its im prac- virtues of the saints, are beyond o u r powers; they inspire hum ility rather
ticality be accepted? D ecem brio gives only a few hints as to how this th an em ulation. In reading the Republic this way D ecem brio once again
dilem m a is to be resolved, but they are significant. T h e first comes in the shows his isolation from the central tradition of fifteenth-century
very title of the work; “ T h e H eavenly Polity of the M ost Illustrious P h i­ h u m anism , with its em phasis on egoistic self-fashioning and its laith in
losopher, P lato of A th e n s” . O n e of D ecem b rio ’s m arginal notes tells us the pow er of m en to achieve a hum an perfection through im itation ol the
w here the title cam e from . T h e source is the fam ous passage at the end classical p a s t.73*
of Book IX , w here P lato is su m m in g up how the truly ju st m an will
* * *
behave, having seen the results of the ty ran n ic life. G laucon rem arks that
if the care of his soul is the ju st m a n ’s chief concern, then the ju st m an T h ro u g h his presentation, translation, and interpretation of the Republic
will not take p a rt in politics. Socrates replies: D ecem brio was able to mold powerfully his read ers’ und erstan d in g of the
text, and this enabled him to present Plato, in despite of his critics, as
Not in his own city, perhaps (unless some divine providence intervenes),
but he will in the city to which he properly belongs [ev Tfj lauxou TtoXet]. an au th o r in some degree suitable to the needs of his tim e. M ere evidence
—I understand. You mean the one we have founded in our present was, how ever, insufficient in an age when for most people the proper way
discussion, whose home is in the ideal [or “ in talk” , £v Xoyoi?], for I don’t to establish historical fact was still to appeal to the authority of th e
suppose it exists anywhere on earth. greatest reclame. D ecem b rio ’s scholastic opponent U golino Pisano
—Well, perhaps it is laid up in the heavens [ev oupavco] as a pattern for
evidently felt his description of P lato ’s m oral teaching sufficiently con­
anyone who wants to see it, and seeing it to found it in himself. It makes
no difference whether it exists anywhere or ever will exist. It is the only city firm ed by A ristotle’s auctoritas, despite the evidence of the Republic itself,
in whose affairs he can take part.70

futura; que enim illius sunt, non autem alterius, aget solum.” Aside from the omissions
69 Text 46. The feeling expressed has strong affinities with Petrarch’s De olio religioso. and additions, which follow the Chrvsoloras version, we may note the addition ol the
70 Rep. IX, 619B. Decembrio’s own rendering of this passage is of interest: “ G/a. Non gloss “ solum” after “ in verbis” (not in the Chrysoloras version), which would seem to
hec igitur observans, inquit, publicarum rerum curam uolet agere. So. Quinimo per have been added bv Decembrio to reinforce his interpretation of the passage.
Iovem, inquam, sed in sua presertim civitate, non autem in patria nisi illi divina sors 71 BAV, Vat. lat. 10669, f. I88v (ad 619B): “ Hinc P. Candidus sumpsit titulum
lortassis accidat. Gla. Intelligo, inquit, in ea civitate dicis, scilicet quam una condentes Cetestis Politia."
sermone disseruimus in uerbis solum existente; nusquam enim illam in terris esse 72 Text 47.
auguror. So. Atqui lortassis in celo, inquam, illius exemplar residet inspicere uolenti, se- 73 Decembrio upholds a similar view as an interlocutor in Antonio da Rho s In Lactan-
que ad earn formare cupienti. Nihil autem interest sive uspiam fuerit sive aliquando sit tium (Text 54, line 319f.)
144 P A R T II MI LAN 145

and A rchbishop Pizolpasso seem ed to feel that problem s anent P la to ’s psychology], and many other sufficiently scholastical and ridiculous
biography could be resolved by w eighing J e ro m e ’s au th o rity in the doctrines.75
balance against the unam b ig u o u s evidence of coeval texts. It was in op­ C ritics had used charges of heterodoxy as am m u n itio n against the
position to this m ethodological principle that D ecem brio developed w hat scholastic cult of A ristotle since the early th irteen th century, and
was the most radical and the m ost interesting of his defenses of Plato.
P etrarch , as we have seen, had already argued for the superior orthodoxy
T h a t defense was to question the principle of auctontas itself.
of Plato. T o say that A ristotle was a bad historian of philosophy was
His first target was the great scholastic au th o rity , A ristotle. H aving es­ perhaps a new elem ent. W here D ecem brio really broke fresh ground,
tablished to his own satisfaction that A risto tle’s account of Plato in Book how ever, was not in his attack on the au th o rity of A ristotle, but in his
II of the Politics was inaccurate, he was d riven to fury by U g o lin o ’s con­ even m ore violent assault on the Fathers of the C h u rch . T he episode is
tinued insistence that the au th o rity of A ristotle could be adm itted against of great interest as illustrating the context w ithin which the historical
the evidence of the text itself.
criticism of the early R enaissance was generated. D ecem brio was plainly
For I said (unless I lost consciousness in the strain of defecation) that the driven into radical criticism of the Fathers by the failure of his argum ents
lilth book of the Republic recently translated into Latin by me does not to convince his p atro n and spiritual overlord A rchbishop Pizolpasso that
match the account Aristotle gives, where in the second book of the Politics
P la to ’s Republic was indeed a useful and m orally acceptable authority.
he tries to attack Socrates for what he says about the community of wives
and other possessions. Now it’s your turn, Ugolino, scratch your head Pizolpasso, devoted as he was to Jero m e and the o ther Fathers, could not
hard—do you remember Aristotle writing this, and attacking Socrates in accept D ecem b rio ’s contention that Je ro m e and L actantius had gotten
the works of Plato? He spoke as follows. [...] But if I remember correctly, their facts w rong. T o accept such a contention w ould, for Pizolpasso,
it's quite different in Book V of Plato. Socrates does not in fact allow in the m ean u n d erm in in g the au th o rity of the Fathers in other m atters, and this
Republic the common ownership of women and goods; it is merely that the
in tu rn w ould weaken or destroy the foundations of scholastic canon law
prince allows some license to the guardians, always preserving a decent
public order.74 and theology. Scholastic doctors regarded auctontates in the light of laws
or principles from which m ight be deduced a body of scientific doctrines;
A nd what was, after all, the basis of A risto tle’s authority? If it was his to subject these laws to historical criticism was therefore an extrem ely
flawless accuracy, that was sufficiently disproved. If it was the proxim ity perilous u n d ertaking. Yet Pizolpasso had enough of the hum anist about
of his teachings to C h ristian faith, then one ought a fortiori to prefer him to see the force of D ecem b rio ’s objections. For m ost of 1438 he wrote
P lato ’s auth o rity . letter after letter to D ecem brio hoping to find some way of m aking
But I really can't agree when you say Aristotle never lies—be careful you J e ro m e ’s account historically plausible, and appealing repeatedly, as
are not deceived by an excessive love for him, Ugolino. If this is true, then though it were a relevant issue, to the holiness and wisdom of Jerom e.
the greater part of our faith must be lame—that faith about which (they say) D ecem brio showed him no m ercy. H e pointed out that J e ro m e ’s sneers
Plato believed more truly and correctly. But perhaps love deceives you and about C a to ’s sexual m ores were refuted by solid contem porary witnesses.
you pay no heed to all those wild opinions of [Aristotle’s]: the eternity of
the world, that the soul does not exercise intellection except in the body [a A nticipating his friend V alla, he pointed out discrepancies between
garbled account of the Averroistic interpretation of Aristotelian J e ro m e ’s V ulgate, the S eptuagint and Saint A m b ro se’s text of the Bible.
A nd again and again he retu rn ed to J e ro m e ’s m isguided accounts of
P la to ’s life, which stood refuted by P lutarch, and his unw arranted
74 Zaccaria (1974/75), p. 207: “ Dixi enim, nisi animus mihi excidit dum purgor criticism s of the Republic, which were am ply disproved by the text of the
vehementius. quintum librum Politiae Platonis, nuper e Graecis litteris in Latinas traduc-
tum a me, non concordare rationi quam Aristoteles Politicae suae secundo libro improbare
nixus est contra Socratem, de comunione mulierum et possessionum reliquarum
disputando. Nunc tuum est, Ugoline, fricare sinciput vehementius, an memineris haec
ab Aristotele scripta et Socratem ab ipso impugnari in libris Platonis? Sic enim dicit: 75 Ibid.: “ Quippe cum tibi non assentiar omnino, dum dicis Aristotelem numquam
[lac. | Haec autem in hoc quinto Platonis libro, si rite memini, aliter se videntur habere. fuisse mentitum. Cave, Uguline, ne amore nimio decipiaris. Nam si vera sunt quae dicis,
Nec enim communio possessionum aut mulierum a Socrate in sua Politia conceditur, sed necesse est maiorem Fidei nostrae partem ciaudicare. De qua Plato, ut aiunt, rectius sentit
custodibus dumtaxat civitatis quaedam datur a principe licentia, servatis ordinibus et verius. Sed forte fallit amor et omnes illas freneticas opiniones non advertis, rnundum
semper politicis et honestis.” (The last two sentences are wrongly attributed to Aristotle ab aeterno, animam nisi in corpore non inteliigi, et multa satis profecto scholastica et non
by Zaccaria.) minus ridenda.”

I ,U, -.w i i "■ f,- ■

 146 P A R T II MI LAN 147

Republic itse lf.76 Pizolpasso’s appeal to J e r o m e ’s sanctity was strictly a rem arkable p air of letters exchanged betw een him and M ichele
beside the point. Pizolpasso. M ichele began in patronizing fashion. H e praised D ecem brio
I do not condemn [these mistakes], but I wonder that so learned a man for the recently-translated Book X of the Republic, and com plim ented
could have said so many untruths. Is it sacrilege? I am saying nothing about Plato for his anticipations of C h ristianity, always how ever m aking plain
his virginity, continence, and his other virtues. I think, indeed, that Jerome that he was aw are of the la tte r’s d ep artures from “ o u r unshakeable
was a most holy man, but only a man, who learned, who made mistakes, C h ristian fa ith " . H e then m ade a revealing request:
who corrected them, and who changed his mind, just like everybody else.77
Lest we be ignorant or ungrateful, let us therefore give you hearty thanks,
Since textual evidence is for D ecem brio the only basis for historical truth, most distinguished and most candid man, when through your efforts and
an appeal to au th o rity is fundam entally irrational. the witness of this great man [Plato] helps are provided for our Faith. But
if, as I have pointed out, there be something inimical to our doctrines, let
I did not write this rashly, but for the sake of discovering the truth. Anyone it be taken as not read (as you no doubt yourself think). I should like you,
who deserts the truth, and thinks it better to stick to authority, knows (as moreover—and this I need immediately and sincerely beg of you, dear
God is my witness) no more than he ought to know. So, as it says in Holy Candidus, since I have no doubt you are a true and catholic Christian and
Scripture [John 18:23], “ If I have spoken evilly, use it as evidence of the I know you justly venerate and revere our entire religion—I should like you
evil; if I spoke well, why do you strike me?’’78 if possible (though I realize how numerous your responsibilities) to snatch
however much time is required to make a statement on the matters Plato
You adduce no argument in this letter of yours other than that my Bishop himself touched on in an obscure fashion and on those things which seem
of Burgos [Alfonso Garcia] agrees with you; on that view I might myself contrary to our Faith. You will be doing something not unworthy of your
say that no one agrees with me except the truth, which must take conspicuously serious character and you will, so to speak, be cutting out
precedence over all authorities.79 every treacherous tongue [Ugolino Pisano’s?] which hitherto has been it­
ching to criticize you. If before it should leave your hands you should insert
H ow ever great D ecem b rio ’s cultural conservatism in o th er m atters, in a pious piece of this sort at the end of the work, it will defend you after you
the m a tte r of historical criticism he was nearly as advanced as V alla, are gone lest they should say you are more of a Platonist than a Christian
w hom he in som e ways anticipates. [an allusion to the famous dream of St. Jerome where he was accused before
It is notew orthy, indeed, th at despite the strenuous efforts we have des­ the judgment seat of being a Ciceronian rather than a Christian—a locus
cribed to m ake Plato acceptable to his place and tim e, D ecem brio was classicus for Christian philistinism].80*
un ab le o r unw illing, in the end, to m ake Plato into (in N ietzsche’s D ecem brio seems to have interpreted this letter as a dem and to C h ris­
phrase) a C h ristian before C hrist. W ise, holy, useful, eloquent Plato m ay tianize thoroughly or to correct Plato. T o his credit, he rejected it. S ar­
have been, but D ecem brio had too m uch historical sense to believe that castically he wrote:
his doctrine was identical with that of P e te r or Paul. W e know this from
Pier Candido to Michele Pizolpasso, greeting. You never stop crying wolf
in your letters, and getting laughed at for it. What is there in sacred
76 Most of the letters upon which this paragraph is based are contained in Book Eight
literature so recondite that it is not grasped by your genius? Not content
of the Riccardianus codex of Decembrio’s letters. They have been edited by Paredi with our Plato, just as he is, you even demand that I, an unlearned man,
(q.v.), p. 208 ff. and Fubini (1966).
77 Fubini (1966), p. 363: “ Haec non reprehendo, sed admiror ab homine docto tarn
multa praeter veritatem dici potuisse. An hoc sacrilegium est? De virginitate nil disputo, 80 Ibid., pp. 365: “ Habemus igitur tibi, vir clarissime et candidissime, si sapimus et
de continentia, de virtutibus caeteris. Puto enim sanctissimum hominem fuisse mgrati non sumus, ingentes gratias, quando fidei nostrae laboribus tuis et testimoniis
Hieronvmum, sed hominem tantum [tm. Riccardianus, tantum exscriptum in cod. tanti viri adminicula praestantur. Si vero, ut praemisi, aliquid est nostris doctrinis in-
Vallisoletano, tamen Fubini], et qui didicerit, et qui erraverit, et qui correxerit, et qui visum, id pro non lecto habeatur, ut non dubito tuam esse sententiam. Vellem equidem,
mutaverit, ut caeteri solent.’’ For a similar attack on Jerome’s authority, see Antonio da quod ab te instanter requiro atque ex animo obsecro, mi Candide, cum te catholicum
Rho’s In Lactantium, Text 54, lines 81 If. et verum christianum non dubitem, et sciam te omnem ritum, ut par est, venerari et
78 Ibid., p. 364: “ Haec non temere scripta a me, sed veritatis indagandae causa, quam revereri, inter varias tuas curas tibi tantum otii subripere quantum ad declarationem
qui deserit et auctoritati magis putet inhaerendum ne mediusfidius plus sapit quam eorum quae obscure perstrinxit ipse Plato et fidei nostrae contraria videntur satis esse
sapere oporteat. Itaque, ut in sacris perhibetur scripturis, “ si male locutus sum, possit. Facies quidem rem tuae perspicuae gravitati [mr] non indignam, resecabisque, ut
testimonium perhibe de malo, si autem bene, cur me caedis?’’ ita dixerim, omnem dolosam linguam quae hactenus carpere gestiret, si huic tuo
7'f Ibid., p. 361: “ Nullam rationem affers in his litteris tuis nisi Burgensem meum venerando labori in calce opens, anteaquam e tuis manibus exeat, inserueris, ut quando
tecum concordare. Quae si momentum habere debent, dicam ipse nullum mecum sentire abesses mortalibus pro te respondeat, ne te magis platonicum quam christianum dix-
nisi ueritatem, quae omnibus autoribus est anteferenda. erint. ’’
 148 P A R T II MI L A N 149

should correct the most learned of men. But which of the ancients does not held at the house of Niccolo A rcim boldi, -between A rcim boldi himself,
disagree with our faith, if you want to start revising the ancients who lived A ntonio da R ho, P ier C an d id o D ecem brio, and some other M ilanese
before the faith? So I advise you to bridle your desire, and be content (as Oc­ scholars and gentlem en. T h e subject of th eir conversations is ostensibly
tavius’ dictum runs) with ' ‘this Cato” . I am not the sort of person who wants
to interpret the sayings of so great a philosopher otherwise than as he under­ the w ritings of the patristic au th o r L actan tiu s, w hich A ntonio m aintains
stood them or as they were handed down in writing to posterity. Farewell.81 are full of gross errors, foolishness, and even heresies. T h e real target,
how ever, is the traditional learn in g of late m edieval C h risten d o m — the
* * * F athers, the scholastics, and th eir hero, A ristotle— all of w hom A ntonio
D ecem b rio ’s “ critical” defense of Plato, then, needs to be seen in the sees as hostile to good (secular) letters.84 Niccolo A rcim boldi, a ju rist and
context of a b ro ad er critique of trad itio n al learning which had em erged an im portant M ilanese d iplom at, is established as the cham pion of
in M ilan d u rin g the third and fourth decades o f the fifteenth century and A ristotle and the Fathers, while A ntonio and P ier C an d id o take the side
whose most fam ous rep resen tativ e was L orenzo V alla. Som e historians of R eason and G ood L ite ra tu re .85
believe this historicizing criticism arose in the V isconti court because of T h e In Lactantium possesses an added fascination for that there survives
the proxim ity and political im p o rtan ce of scholastic rivals w orking at the a m anuscript of it with a prefatory letter and extensive annotations added
U niversity of P avia; they contrast it with the m ore pacific style of F loren­ by one of the interlocutors, Niccolo A rcim boldi him self.86 A rcim boldi, it
tine h u m anists like B runi who were able to m ain tain a diplom atic seem s, was not pleased w ith the way A ntonio had presented his views.
segregation of hu m an and divine stu d ie s.82 H ow ever this m ay be, the H e adm its that L actantius did som etim es e rr, b ut argues that one should
obsession of m odern scholarship w ith the figure of V alla has obscured the not ju d g e him too harshly, as C h ristian literatu re had not developed very
contribution of lesser personages such as D ecem brio, C atone Sacco, and far in the tim e of C o n stan tin e: fear of persecution had left no interval lor
the Franciscan A ntonio da R ho to the em ergence of som ething like study, and “ those splendid lights of the C h u rc h ” , Je ro m e , A ugustine,
m odern source criticism . and A m brose, had not yet w ritten . By ungratefully exaggerating L actan ­
T h e Dialogi in Lactantium of A ntonio da R h o , indeed, are particularly tiu s’ defects, A ntonio has only exposed his own ignorance. H ence Nic-
fascinating in this way as giving a vivid glim pse of those circles of colo takes it upon him self to defend L actantius by publishing a redaction
cultivated a m a te u rs— the predecessors of the early m odern academ ies— of A n to n io ’s book fortified w ith critical an n o tatio n s. T hese, he adm its,
am ong whom historical studies first began to assum e th eir m odern form . are insufficiently learned to defend L actantius adequately, but he hopes
T h e In Lactantium was finished a ro u n d 1443 and was dedicated to Pope they will be like shouts, as it w ere, draw ing stronger wits into the fray .87*
Eugene IV . It was never p rin ted and has been very little studied, p ro b a­ T h e In Lactantium is relevant to o u r present subject because in a long
bly ow ing to its longw inded and reb arb ativ e style; its m atter, how ever, chapter of the second book, A ntonio puts into the m outh of Pier C andido
is of considerable in te re st.83 T h e dialogues p u rp o rt to be conversations D ecem brio an interesting critique of L a c ta n tiu s’ and A ristotle’s
m isrepresentations of the doctrines of Republic V concerning m aterial and

31 Ibid., p. 366: “ P. Candidus Michaeli Pizolpasso salutem. Non cessas tuis litteris
excitare dormientes et risum captare per nugas. Quid enim esc abditum sacris in litteris 34 See esp. Ambros. D 105 sup., f. 7r. Antonio da Rho had suffered some persecution
quod ab ingenio tuo non sit comprehensum? Non contentus Platone nostro, qualiscum- within his order for his devotion to poetry and secular letters and had written an
que is sit. etiam emendationem doctissimi viri ab indocto exigis. At quis antiquorurn non epistolatory treatise in defense of his literary interests.
tide nostra discrepat, si veteres et tide priores cupis retractare? Quamobrem consulo 85 On Arcimboldi, see N. Raponi in D B I 3: 779-781. Arcimboldi was from an impor­
ut (et MS] desiderio tuo imponas inodum, contentusque sis, iuxta Octavii dictum, hoc tant family of Milanese jurists and ecclesiastics which was raised to prominence by the
C.atone. Nec enim is sum qui tanti philosophi dicta secus velim interpretari, quam aut Visconti and Sforza regimes. He had taken his doctorate in law at the University ot
ab ipso intellecta, aut posteritati litteris fuere mandata. Vale.’’ Pavia, and was regularly employed by Filippo Maria Visconti on diplomatic missions;
3J See G. Holmes, The Florentine Enlightenment (London, 1969), pp. 30, 63, 126f’. , and he was also a friend and correspondent of Pier Candido Decembrio (to whom the latter
Fubini (1966). dedicated his Histona peregrtna).
Hi See Fubini’s bibliography to his entry on Antonio da Rho in D B I 3:574-577. In ad­ 86 Ambros. D 105 sup., cited in Iler 1: 297.
dition to Fubini’s article, the entry on Antonio by G. G. Sbaralea is especially useful 87 Ibid., ff. lv-2v. The preface is dated ‘‘ex aedibus meis in Mediolano tertio Nonas
(.Supplemrntum el castigatm ad “Scriptures Tnum Ordinum S Francisci " a Waddmgo uliisve Maii anni 1445” . The colophon (f. 156v) reads ‘‘Fratris Anthonii Raudensis poete atque
de\cnpto \ . Editw not a |Rome, 1908| 1:93-94). Sbaralea lists seven manuscripts of the In theologi dialogus in Lactantium Firmianum explicit memoriter et iocunde. Scriptus luit
L a i tanhntn . so that n was not without influence; Kileifo attacked it in one of his letters iste Mediolani et finitus die 27 Septembris 1455.” This latter date may well be a slip for
(IV..)). See also the Addenda. 1445.

•N -i -• ti i
 150 P A R T II M ILAN 151

m arital com m unism . Since this passage alm ost certainly is very close to A ristotle’s attack on the doctrine of Republic V, in B ru n i’s Latin tran sla­
the ideas of the historical D ec e m b rio ,88 we have an u n usual op p o rtu n ity tion. (A ntonio, or D ecem brio, does not lose the opportunity to criticize
to overhear discussions con cern in g the Republic w ithin a few years of the obscurity of B ru n i’s tran slatio n .) “ W hen Niccolo had read through
D ecem brio’s tran slatio n o f it, and to assess the kind of im pact it had on for us A ristotle’s argum ents against Plato and Socrates, we all of us
educated circles in M ila n .89 A nd the an n o tatio ns by A rcim boldi perm it hu n g on Pier C an d id o ’s lips, eager to hear how he would rep ly .”
us at the sam e tim e to estim ate how effective D ecem brio was in m olding D ecem brio did not disappoint them . H e began by m aking the general
the L atin Republic to suit the prejudices of his readers. point that P lato ’s purpose in w riting the Republic had been to paint the
T h e discussion begins w ith A rcim boldi reading aloud to the assem bl­ ideally ju st m an, as C icero ’s purpose (in the De oratore) had been to
ed scholars an entire ch ap ter from the th ird book of L a c ta n tiu s’ Divine im agine the ideal orator. H is depiction of the “ most holy republic” had
Institutes, a ch ap ter in w hich the apologist had caricatu red P la to ’s been a device to exhibit m ore forcefully the nature of the ju st m an; he
teachings in Republic V as a plan to tu rn the female sex into A m azonian did not conceive of it as a practical alternative for his own tim es.90* He
prostitutes. “ T h is com m une o f m en and w om en is no th in g but non-stop then goes on to confute L actan tiu s’ and A ristotle’s charges seriatim,
sex and a d u lte ry ” . W hile the c h ap ter is being read, D ecem brio has been quoting chapter and verse from his own translation of the Republic. T he
practically apoplectic, but N iccolo does not allow him to get a w ord in; m ajor point he wishes to establish is that Plato recom m ended m aterial
instead, he praises L actan tiu s, abuses Plato, and calls D ecem brio a and m arital com m unism , not for the entire city, but only tor his g u a r­
stubborn fellow for his obstin ate cham pionship of the G reek philoso­ dians, “ a few sen ato rs” , who would form the aristocracy from which
pher. Niccolo then notes th at A ristotle, too, criticized P la to ’s “ com ­ the philosopher king would be chosen. T hese would be virtuous and
m u n ism ” in m uch the sam e term s. At last P ier C an d id o is allowed to dispassionate contem platives, w ell-educated in all the arts. T hey would
speak. H e begins diplom atically by praisin g (with faint dam ns) A risto­ not be perm itted “ indiscrim inate sex” , b ut would have their m arriages
tle’s learning in n atu ral philosophy an d (draw ing upon B ru n i’s Life of arran g ed by the prince, and consecrated in public cerem onies with
Aristotle) his rem arkable eloquence. P lato and Socrates are still m ore hym ns and religious rites. T h e com m on ow nership of goods he com ­
learned and eloquent, of course. Niccolo breaks in: Is this praise of pares to the com m unism of the early C h u rch and St. F rancis’ prohibi­
Aristotle a palinode? H ow can you praise A ristotle while criticizing L ac­ tions of private ow nership. But lest this be taken for some species of
tantius for m aking m istakes th at A ristotle m ade too? A t this point N ic­ radicalism , he points out that the com m on goods of the guardians would
colo and Pier C an d id o pull out th eir texts of the Politics and the Republic be funded by the rest of the populace, w hich would include a large class
with the air of knightly cham pions d raw in g their trusty blades. Niccolo of negotiatores. H e denies A ristotle’s charge that social m obility would be
proceeds to read out the en tirety of Politics II.ii, the passage containing difficult u n d er such a regim e, showing that Plato intended m em bership
in the “ senatorial” class to be a rew ard for m erit, allotted by a ju st
88 Despite the parallel case of Arcimboldi. For in the preface to Eugene IV, f. 4r, An­ “ p rin ce” . H e adm its that Plato conceived of w om en as taking part in
tonio says he and Decembrio worked together in compiling the material for the book. w arfare and politics, b ut dismisses this (citing a passage in A ugustine’s
In 1437-38 Decembrio had projected a work in six volumes attacking Lactantius, of City of God) as an ab erratio n stem m ing from the social idiosyncrasies of
which he finished only one volume, subsequently dedicated to Francesco Visconti (the
law professor of Pavia); the work has unfortunately been lost (Zaccaria [1956], p. 56). ancient A thens. A ristotle had argued th at n atu ral affections would be
That this volume included some of the same material here put in Decembrio’s mouth w atered dow n by being spread am ong so m any, thus dissolving all loyal­
may be inferred Irom its title: In Lactanhum Firmianum pro tuilione Platonis liber. There are ty to the state, but D ecem brio argues, with Plato, that taking away the
also a number of verbal parallels between marginalia in Decembrio’s archetype of his
translation of the Republic (Ambros. 1.104 sup.) and what the interlocutor “ P. Can- causes of dissension could only increase m utual love and devotion to the
didus” says in the In Lactanlium; for example, the note at f. 105, “ Hie esc fundamentum com m on good, as Franciscan friars love each other and their order
erroris Lactantii et aliorum qui non advertunt similitudinem civitatis a Socrate descrip-
tam per comparationem suorum custodum, sed putant eum de universa sua civitate lo-
qui,” which may be compared to the passage in Text 54, line 341 f. See also above, 90 The last phrase is conjecture as to the meaning of a vague and textually difficult
notes 53 and 73. passage at lines 323-4. The idea is of course paralleled by Decembrio’s notion of the
'i'> I edit the entire passage in vol. 2, Text 54. References to the various works of Celestis Politia which has been discussed above. He perhaps means to suggest that Plato
Lactantius, Jerome. Aristotle and Plato mav be found there in the apparatus jontium. For did not think it practical in his own time, but recognized that it might become possible
a discussion of Lactantius’ attitude to Plato, see M. Perrin, “ Le Platon de Lactance” , one dav (after the birth of Christ?). This would be in keeping with the general patristic
in Lactance et son temps, recherches actuelles, ed. J. Fontaine and \I . Perrin (Paris, 1978). position that Plato saw dimly what would be realized in Christianity.
152 P A R T II M ILAN 153

the m ore by being separated from their families and from worldly this. It is interesting that despite D ecem brio’s attem p t to render obscure
cares.91 the passage at 461B -E ,94 which perm its g u ardians to indulge in “ free
T his account shows ju st how clever D ecem brio has been in shaping the love” after th eir childbearing years, Niccolo is still able to infer its basic
Republic to appeal to his audience. M ost of the m en in D ecem b rio ’s a u ­ in tent from the su rro u n d in g context. In the following note he shows that
dience would have belonged to the professional classes raised to p rom i­ the guard ian class was not ju st “ a few sen ato rs” but com prised at least
nence in V iscontean M ilan by their own intellectual m erit and the favor a thousand. H e then defends A ristotle (the “ prince of philosophers” ),
of the p rin c e .92 T h e ir au th o rity in the state they buttressed by saying that A ristotle m ay have confused one detail of P la to ’s program ,
dow ngrading the claim s of noble birth and elevating those of superior v ir­ w hether m arital com m unism was to apply to some or all, but what m at­
tue and education. T h ey were keenly aw are that the factionalism in tered was that he had refuted the principle of m arital com m unism . It is
oligarchic regim es like F lorence’s was largely fed by rivalries between significant, in light of the future developm ent of source criticism , that
great fam ilies— rivalries often intensified by com petition in business and th roughout this passage Niccolo cites carefully the ch ap ter and verse of
by m arriage disputes. It was a widely received notion everyw here in early the various texts he uses. Scholastic w riters, to be sure, were often con­
R enaissance Italy that the greatest good for a state was a political class cerned with accurate citation, but in their case they were citing
united am ong itself and devoted to the com m on good. A nd the idea of authorities legalistically to prove some abstract theological, scientific, or
public offices su pported by public funds was ju st beginning to find sup­ legal tru th . H ere we see texts being used as fontes— rather than
port am ong such m e n .93 So although D ecem b rio ’s audience m ight not auctoritates— to establish the historical intention of an ancient author.
have thought the Platonic state a really practical alternative for their
* * *
tim es (a thing which Plato him self, according to P ier C an d id o , had ad ­
m itted), they could well have com e to the conclusion, thanks to D ecem ­ T h e reception of Plato in M ilan, then, presents certain contrasts with the
b rio ’s analysis, that it was by no m eans undesirable. situation that obtained in Florence. F lorentine hum anists (and their
W e do have evidence how one of A ntonio da R h o ’s readers, Niccolo epigoni in the R o m an court) had m ade a fundam entally eclectic use of the
A rcim boldi, reacted to D ecem b rio ’s defense of Plato, for this passage was Platonic corpus to advance the cause of the secular letters. T hro u g h
am ong those he had most heavily an n o tated . Niccolo was plainly not im ­ P la to ’s works they had dem onstrated that the esoteric philosophy behind
pressed by D ecem b rio ’s a rg u m en t, though of course he would be ill high paganism had been very close to C h ristian tru th ; they had populariz­
disposed to do so: he had been m ade in A n to n io ’s dialogues to look rather ed a philosopher who (unlike the scholastics) com bined eloquence and
ineffective as a cham pion of L actan tiu s, having lost about forty-five poetry with w isdom ; they had shown that the ancient way of philosophiz­
argu m en ts in a row thro u g h three days of disp u tation. H e was also a bit ing was not form al disputation un d er a m aster b ut inform al discussion
shocked by the irreverent treatm en t accorded L actantius, A ristotle, and am ong social equals. B runi had professed him self m oved by P lato ’s public
Jero m e . But he did not rest his case only on au th o rity , as U golino Pisano spirit, and had attem pted to use his Letters to strengthen republican mores,
had done. H e had the use, not only of a copy of B ru n i’s translation of b ut had carefully avoided his system atic political thought.
the Politics, b u t also of D ecem b rio ’s Republic. U sing these w eapons he ef­ In M ilan, on the other h and, a different political environm ent, com ­
fectively challenged D ecem b rio ’s in terp retatio n of Republic V. H e argued bined with the exigencies of patronage, had m ade the Republic in some
that m arital com m unism was not confined to the g u ard ian class, since on respects a m ore attractive object of study. T o introduce a Latin Republic
that condition there w ould then be no need to fear m iscegenation; but, into C h ristian society proved, how ever, to be a difficult business. For
citing a passage from Book IV , he shows th at Plato did fear this. It is m ore than a thousand years it had been a sym bol am ong C h ristian writers
of the m oral depravity of even the best pagan philosophies. T h e task was
m ade still m ore difficult because of a certain polarization am ong M ilanese
91 It is noteworthy that Decembrio, in establishing for his audience the accuracy of this
account of Plato’s doctrine, quotes all of the edited and bowdlerized passages noted professional g ro u p s.95*Plato in some q u arters had becom e the symbol of
above, pp. 136f.
For ihe audience of Milanese humanism, see the valuable and well-documented
study of Adam (q.v ). Adam shows a society with a strong symbiosis between town and 94 See above, p. 137.
court, an interesting early parallel to the situation in the Paris of the philosophes. 95 This polarization has been exaggerated by some writers into an outright ideological
'* See F. Cognasso in Slona di Milano (Milan, 1955), 6: 4781. confrontation between “ humanism” and “ scholasticism” . This, however, is an anachro-

,U ,w
 154 P A R T II M ILAN 155

the new learning, even of a certain irreverence tow ards traditional ship to C o n stantinople, there to study philosophy and literatu re (it is sup­
authorities, and representatives of m ore established clerical and profes­ posed) w ith the rhetor J o h n Eugenicus. It m ay have been Eugenicus—
sional groups were n atu rally inclined to regard with suspicion any a t­ him self, perhaps, a student of the fam ous Platonist G em istus Pletho—
tem pts to establish him as a m oral au th o rity . D ecem brio had done m uch who kindled in C assarino an enthusiasm for P la to .97 A fter some four
to assim ilate the text to his en v iro n m en t, but had been less than com ­ years in C o n stantinople, C assarino retu rn ed to V enice, where he tried
pletely successful. T his was perhaps a result of his m ore com bative stance unsuccessfully to Find em ploym ent; he passed th ereafter to M ilan and
tow ards traditional culture. B runi had u n ited his voice w ith o ther F loren­ Pavia, perhaps in an attem p t to find a place at the V isconti court; Finally
tines in praise of the (classically educated) Fathers of the C h u rc h — he was obliged to settle for a schoolm astering post in G enoa, and in Ju n e
especially the “ C hristian C ic e ro ” , L actan tiu s— , b u t D ecem brio showed of 1439 began his career as the town schoolm aster publico stipendio.
him self willing to use pagan w riters to criticize the au th o rity even of a n ­ At First his affairs seem ed to prosper. H e won the esteem and
cient C h ristians. In light of the later developm ent of historical criticism , p atro n ag e of certain m em bers of the G enoese aristocracy, including the
it was perhaps the M ilanese, rath er th an the F lorentine attitu d e, that was doge, T om m aso Fregoso. H is salary was increased. In the course of time,
the m ore significant. how ever, C assarino seems to have been unw ittingly draw n into the
volatile political life of the city. H is work was criticized by an opposing
faction; he was publicly hum iliated by the fraudulent learning of the
3. The Platonic Translations of Antonio Cassanno
travelling m o u n teb an k F ernando of C ordova; and the city council, ever
T he last tran slato r of P lato in N o rth ern Italy d u rin g the early Q u a t­ in need of cash, twice reduced his already m odest salary. R educed to
trocento is the m inor h u m an ist A ntonio C assarino, w hom it will be con­ u n h ap p y pen u ry , he besought his friend and fellow Sicilian, Antonio
venient to treat here as his tran slatio n of the Republic is closely connected P an o rm ita, to Find him a place at the N eapolitan court of Alfonso the
w ith those of the D ecem b rii.96 M ag n an im o u s. In this P an o rm ita evidently succeeded, for C assarino was
C assarino was born probably tow ards the end of the fourteenth cen­ on the point of d ep artin g for Naples w hen the unexpected tragedy came.
tury in the village of N oto n ear Syracuse, the ancient port which played In the factional disturbances of J a n u a ry 1447, C a ssa rin o ’s house was
so im p o rtan t a part in the life of A n to n io ’s favorite a u th o r, Plato. Flaving besieged by m em bers of an opposing p arty in the city. W hile his doors
com pleted his early train in g in letters at Syracuse, C assarin o is likely to w ere being broken in, C assarino, fearing the w orst, tried to escape by
have studied at one of the m ajor universities on the c o n tin en t— probably leaping from an upper-storey window into the w indow of a neighbor’s
on a scholarship provided by his native city— ; he then w ould have house. H e slipped, fell into the street and was killed in stan tly .98*
retu rn ed to Sicily, w here he taught as magister scholae parvulorum in P aler­ T h e works C assarino left at his p rem atu re death consist alm ost entirely
m o from 1431 to 1433. But being dissatisfied with the opportunities for of translations of G reek w riters on m oral philosophy. O f Plutarch he
distinction offered by that provincial center, he evidently form ed the am ­ translated nine tractates from the Moralia, of Plato the pseudonym ous
bition of acq u irin g a know ledge of the G reek language, w hich in that dialogues Axiochus and Eryxias, and the Republic, together with the Life of
period was becom ing the sine qua non of a successful literary career. In Plato by D iogenes L aertius. N either the choice of subject m atter nor of
early 1434 he set out for G en o a, crossed from thence to V enice, and took the metier was accidental. C assarino was a quiet and serious m an who was
attracted to Stoicism and valued his scarce otium litteranum. H e adhered
nism originating in the tendency to see the conflicts of the fifteenth century as forerunners Firmly to the faith of the hum anist ed u cato r that the study of ancient
of Enlightenment debates. The ideological temperature of fifteenth-century debates is in
fact rather low, taking a decided second place to personal animosities. Personal divisions
and tastes usually distorted what we would consider natural ideological groupings, and 97 Resta (1959), p. 211, argues plausibly that Eugenicus was Cassarino’s teacher of
disputes we see as ideological (as for example the disputes depicted by Antonio da Rho) Greek; he also taught the humanist Giovanni Tortelli at about the same time. Legrand,
were often conducted in a relaxed spirit of friendly disagreement; despite widespread an­ p. 140, reports that it was he who gave Cassarino his Greek codex of Plato (on which
ticlericalism, all sides remained firmly Christian. No one as yet had seen the threats this see below, App. 10).
kind of debate might pose for the historical evidences of Christianity. m Pietro Ransano, Annates, quoted by Resta (1959), p. 207: “ Sed. dum ob civilem an-
For the life and works of Cassarino the sources are much scantier than for Decem- ni huius motum mutata rerum omnium facies esset, ita ut stricto ferro excursionem multi
l)iio, but what sources exist have been thoroughly treated by Gianvito Resta; see esp. facerent per urbem, nonnulli cum temptarent in domum ubi erat perfractis portis ir-
Resta (1959), Resta, Le epilomi, and his article on Cassarino s.v. in D B l, vol. 11, sub voce; rumpere, dum nititur ipse desilire in fcnestram alterius cuiusdam domus, que erat sub
the latter has a lull bibliography. adversa Ironte, in terram ingenti pondere concidit, continuoque expiravit.”
156 P A R T II M ILAN 157

wisdom and the im itation of ancient virtue was the m ost effective fo rm a­ the translator’s business [to do so]; or as though Plato’s authority were not
tion for a m an who would be useful to his city. It was therefore n atural so great that it ought to be held of more account than the ignorance of cer­
tain glib babblers.101
that there should come m ost readily u n d e r his notice those ancient
w ritings in which the tone of practical m oralism was p red o m in an t. Being As the “ glib b ab b lers” in this case included L actantius and St. Jero m e
how ever som ew hat tim id in his ch aracter and reluctant to em ploy the (as C assarino doubtless knew), this statem ent w ould seem to indicate a
usual m eans of self-advertisem ent, he chose to come before the public as rem arkably secular attitude tow ards authorities on C a ssa rin o ’s part. It is
a translator rath er than as an original au th o r. T his munus he defended as possible that C assarin o ’s position as an em ployee of the Genoese Com -
far m ore useful, and at the sam e tim e far m ore difficult, than his rath er u ne (or rath er of the m erchant oligarchy that controlled it) gave him
philistine G enoese audience was evidently w illing to allow. In o rder to g reater freedom in his cultural activities than D ecem brio, with his
adapt his projects to their u n d e rsta n d in g , he even w ent so far as to com ­ clerical patrons, enjoyed.
pare his im portations of G reek w isdom into the L atin W est with the C assarin o ’s determ ination to present P la to ’s thought in its historical
trad in g activities of m erchants, who supplied the needs of one region nakedness was carried out, as has been shown elsew here, in practice as
from the superfluity of another. well as in th e o ry .102 But this very accuracy m ak es'it paradoxically dif­
C assarin o ’s ideas about tran slatio n followed for the m ost p art the path ficult to analyze his translations with a view to recovering his interp reta­
blazed by S alutati and B runi. Believing as he did in the practical utility tion of the texts. N or does the extant d o cu m entation help us very much
of ancient literatu re in the task of reform ing m orality, C assarino held it to u n d erstan d the reasons for his attraction to Plato. H e tells us in the
im portant above all to preserve the rhetorical pow er of the original. V ir­ introduction to his version of the Republic that it was the worthiness of
tue could not be tran sm itted unless know ledge w ere allied with elo­ P la to ’s subject and the w eight and sweetness of his discourse that m ade
quence. In pursu it of this aim he believed, as C icero had believed, that him w ant to present Plato to a L atin a u d ie n c e .103* U nlike m any other
it was perm issible for the tran slato r to d ep art from the w ords in o rd er to readers of Plato in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, he finds P lato’s
preserve the sense, som etim es su b stitu tin g several w ords or a phrase for dialogic form rath er m ore attractive than otherw ise. T h is leads him to ex­
a single G reek w ord so as to reproduce the full effect of the original. T h e plain perceptively why, generally speaking, Plato has proved so u n a ttra c ­
tran slato r should produce a version that was fully as elegant, correct, and tive to m en of learning in the fifteenth century. T h e reason, according
powerful as the original was assum ed to b e ." to C a s s a rirj, is the cultural split betw een scholastics and the students of
A lthough in general there was n o th in g original about these views, the hum anities, leading to a situation in which neith er group was apt to
there were a few distinctive touches. O n e was C a ssa rin o ’s insistence that appreciate the dialogues at their full value:
the tran slato r should avoid m eddling in any wav w ith the text, w hether It came to the point where Plato’s writings could be agreeable only to a very
to m ake it m ore appealing to patro n s or for any other reason, a rem ark few, as I believed. For if any were to be found with some knowledge of
which recalls D ecem b rio ’s criticism s of B ru n i's looser v ersio n s.100 But literature, I realized they didn’t care very much for acute reasoning and this
unlike D ecem brio, who tried as far as possible to show that Plato was manner of philosophizing, as they open their ears only to what smacks of
consistent with C h ristian values, C assarin o was content to rest upon Livy or Cicero. And if any had attained some knowledge of philosophy, or
called themselves philosophers, they followed what they called “ Aristote­
P lato 's authority alone: lian brevity” , so that they not only had no love for this kind of argument,
It does not much bother me, nor do I think it is any of my business, what but had not the least taste for it, as though this dialogical method had not
I have heard certain persons say, that Plato was a madman to have thought been adjudged the more brilliant, and that manner of disputation more
women and children should be held in common—as though I should think pleasant and perfect. Thus, those who were not displeased with his style
it my duty here to defend Plato’s opinions, or that indeed it were any of
101 Ibid.: “ Illud autem nec me multum impedit, aut minus ad me pertinere iudico,
quod dicentes quosdam audimus delirasse Platonem, qui mulieres et filios in communi
For Cassarino's views on translation, see Resta (1959), p. 224. and Cassarino’s habendum censuerit, tamquam hoc loco putem mihi decreta Platonis delendenda, vel
edited in ibid., pp. 259 and 261. quicquam id pertineat ad eius qui interpretetur officium, aut non tanta sit Platonis auc-
Ibid., p. 261: ‘"Hind tarnen dixerirn. me. quod equidem seiarn, nullum verbum aut toritas, ut pluris ea haberi debeat quam quorundam dicaculorum inscitia.’’
addidisse aut delraxisse. neque iactantiam [iactantiae MS| aut laudem alicui ereptam vel 102 See App. 9.
|velim MS. R i\la | venditandi ingenii causa vel quod alicums gratiam quaererem, sed 103 Resta (1959), p. 260: “ Movebat me rerum cum dignitas turn suavitas orationis et
communis bom et Platonis amort1 hoc opus susccpisse. gravitas. ’’

T i -I-
 158 P A R T II MILAN 159

were offended by his subtlety, and those who loved subtlety took small im placable enem y P an o rm ita had been actuated by some such motive,
pleasure in his style. This would surely not be, were it not for this useless b ut it is unlikely to have been the sole m otive in the case of C assarino.
factionalism of studies and arts, and did not most people find study so T h e latter, as we have seen, had probably been attracted to Plato already
irksome that they will not even expend the labor necessary to understand.104
while a student in C onstantinople, and had in any case expressed a desire
Equally little is know n of the im m ediate circum stances which gave rise to translate all of P lato ’s works, not ju st the Republic. A nd though it is
to C assarin o ’s P latonic versions. T h e Eryxias, vet De divitiis was b egun as clear that C assarino knew and despised the two previous attem pts by
a school exercise while C assarin o was still in C o n stan tin o p le, and was C hrysoloras and the D ecem brii to translate the Republic, it is difficult to
later dedicated to his chief p atro n in G enoa, T o m m aso Fregoso, perhaps disagree w ith A n to n io ’s view that those translations had been so clumsy
as a com panion piece to his version of P lu ta rc h ’s De avaritia, which was and inaccurate that a new version was d e sira b le .108
also dedicated to the d o g e .105 T o dedicate m oralizing treatises against C a ssa rin o ’s version is indeed far superior to those earlier versions, and
wealth to the leader of a m erch an t oligarchy shows once again how some is on a level w ith the best translations of the early fifteenth century. As
hum anists aim ed to displace the clergy as the m oral censors of society. R esta in his study of the opening passages of Book I has shown, not only
His version of the Axiochus was inscribed to his form er pupil, G iacom o is C a ssa rin o ’s grasp of G reek far more sophisticated than that of the
C urio, who would later becom e the chancellor of the G enoese D ecem brii, but his L atin style adm irably recreates the effects of P lato ’s
co m m u n e .106 subtle literary art: his aural and rhythm ic devices, his im itation of
A bout the genesis of his L atin Republic we are slightly b etter inform ed. speech-patterns, his ap p aren t simplicity and n a tu ra ln e ss.109 T he
T he dialogue was chosen on the advice of P an o rm ita as the one most S icilian’s claim to have added and om itted nothing to the text appears
suitable to dedicate to C a ssa rin o ’s prospective p atro n , Alfonso the to be perfectly co rre c t,110 and in this respect too his translation is superior
M agnificent. P an o rm ita was by this tim e an im p o rtan t official at the to the earlier ones, which had displayed frequent lacunae, paraphrases,
N eapolitan court and no d oubt u n derstood well the k in g ’s taste. and occasional glosses.
C assarino was, how ever, later accused by P ier C an d id o D ecem brio of Problem s how ever rem ain: not, as a rule, w ith und erstan d in g P lato’s
having u n d ertak en the tran slatio n out of sheer anim osity tow ards him self G reek, but ra th e r (as in the case of Bruni) w ith u n d erstan d in g his philos­
and (therefore) tow ards all good m e n .107 It m ay be true that D ecem b rio ’s ophy. T his is not to say that the earlier Latin Republics had any advantage
of C a ssa riru in rendering P la to ’s m etaphysics and epistem ology; on the
104 Ibid.: "Hue accedebat quod eiusmodi haec mihi videbantur, que non possint nisi contrary. But in certain m ore difficult passages of the Republic, the reader
quam paucissimis grata evenire. Nam si qui reperiuntur, quibus eruditio fortasse lit-
of C a ssa rin o ’s version would be in no b etter position than a reader ol the
terarum non desit, sciebam his acuta quedam et hunc philosophandi morem non multum
placere, ut nihil eorum aures patiantur nisi quod aut Livium sonet aut Ciceronem. Si D ecem brian versio n s.111
qui vero philosophiae aliquid attigerunt, seu sese philosophos dicunt, ita aristotelicam ut C assarino thus represents the best the literary hnd m oralizing
aiunt brevitatern sequuntur, ut hanc disserendi consuetudinem non modo non ament,
hum anism of the early fifteenth century could accom plish in Platonic
sed ne ullum quidem gustum percipiant. tanquam haec dialogorum ratio Ulustrior non
sit iudicata, et mos iste disputandi iocundior et perfectior. Ita fit ut quibus oratio non scholarship: a refined und erstan d in g of P la to ’s style, some degree o f ap ­
displicet, subtilitas offendat, et qui subtilitatem amant, oratione non admodum delecten- preciation for his m oral doctrine, and a determ in atio n to present Plato
tur: quod sane non fieret si tanta studiorum et artium tarn inutilis facta non esset distrac-
tio et si non eo usque studiorum plerosque pigeret, ut ne laborem quidem ad
intelligendum velint perferre.” [i.e., not acting from disinterested motives], but dwelling on the studies of others and
105 See ibid., pp. 250, 253-254. Cassarino seems to have believed in the (false) attribu­ otherwise nosing about works that had already been published, he would try to correct
tion of this dialogue to Plato until disabused of his error by Filelfo, who had seen and any mistakes he found in order to show himself more learned and polished than other
approved the translation; see Legrand, p. 34. people. This was certainly the case when, encouraged by a certain fellow-tribesman of
106 See Resta (1959), pp. 252-253. his [i.e., Panormita, who was also from Sicily], he retranslated Plato’s Republic, which
107 See the texts quoted in ibid., p. 269 and notes. In a letter to Lampugnino Birago 1 had already translated, and so spoiled that distinguished work that no one has ever writ­

(ibid.) Decembrio wrote: "You ask me to describe the character and behavior towards ten anything worse. ’’ There seems to have been a presumption in the early fifteenth cen­
good men of Antonio Cassarino, who taught letters in Genoa; I shall give you my opinion tury, more honored, perhaps, in the breach than in the observance, that translators
of him briefly. This Antonio Cassarino had a character hardly different from Filelfo’s and should bv preference translate works which had not hitherto been translated.
was no less vicious. As an "emulator of the best arts’’, as he used to call himself, he was 108 Ibid., p. 261.

beyond doubt an enemy to all the best things. Whenever he saw that anyone had 109 See ibid., pp. 263-268.

translated something in an elegant and highly-wrought style, he would immediately M,) Based on a collation of Book Five only.
either criticize it or try to render it anew himself, not to undertake the translator's task 111 See App. 9.
 160 P A R T II

exactly as he was, w hether or not he accorded w ith C hristian ity . But

though he clearly adm ired Plato, none of the evidence licenses us to su p ­
pose that he was in any real sense a P lato n ist, that is, som eone who u n ­
derstood and accepted the central tenets of P la to ’s epistem ology and
m etaphysics. T h e m istakes and confusions in C a ssa rin o ’s translation
suggest that C assarino lacked a sophisticated grasp of P la to ’s m eta­
physics and epistem ology, and was ig n o ran t of the ancient and B yzantine
interpretative traditions stretching from A ristotle to Psellus. For such an
und erstan d in g , the L atin W est w ould have to aw ait a generation of
scholars capable of com bining G reek and L atin scholarship with
philosophical u n d erstan d in g : the g eneration of G eorge o fT re b iz o n d and
C ard in al Bessarion.

P A R T III
ROM E

man is angry with the dead.

—Aristotle, Rhet. II.3, 1380B
 T h e students of Plato in Italy d u rin g the first half of the Q u attro cen to had
given the L atin W est a m u ch greater fam iliarity with the Platonic
dialogues than it had h itherto possessed, b ut they had not advanced it
very far tow ards u n d erstan d in g P latonism . Indeed, the appearance of a
dozen new Platonic dialogues in L atin d u rin g the first half of the century
m ade rem arkably little difference in the attitu d e to Plato am ong W estern
hum anists. W hat surprised them m ost was the difficulty of getting at
P la to ’s own doctrines th ro u g h the literary disguises of the dialogues.
T h e ir sources and prejudices had evidently led them to expect either a
m ore eloquent and sublim e version of the A ristotelian textbook, or
superexcellently wise an d w eighty C iceronian dialogues. T he actual
dialogues, with their rap id and confusing changes of topic, their quarrel-
ings over ap p arently m in o r points of definition, their inconclusive or
perversely conclusive outcom es, baffled and annoyed a good m any
readers. O nly P ier C an d id o D ecem brio, it seems, openly cam paigned
against received beliefs ab out Plato on the basis of w hat he had read in
the dialogues, but even he, despite some ra th e r deceitful m aneuvers, did
not wholly succeed in convincing all his readers that Plato was wise,
useful, and holy. As his critic, the diplom at and ju rist Niccolo Arcim-
boldi (in effect) rem arked, w hat difference did it m ake w hether Plato p re­
scribed his repellent social doctrines for all of the city or only part?
T h e ru d im en tary kind of source criticism that D ecem brio deployed
was in fact only rarely used in early Q u attro cen to attem pts to defend
Plato against adverse testim ony. T h e m ore usual m eans of m aking Plato
safe for C h ristian ity , as we have seen, w ere to choose out prudently the
m ost pious and useful dialogues, presenting them in carefully prepared
fram es of m arginalia and praefato ria, or to em ploy various kinds of self­
censorship. T his latter technique could take the form of bow dlerizations,
C h ristianizations, om issions, or silent glosses. T ho u g h it is often difficult
to d eterm in e how far these m an ip u latio n s of fram e and text were con­
sciously produced, it is clear that the hu m an ist translators were often
perfectly aw are that they w ere not presenting the “ real” Plato whom
they found in their G reek texts. T hey m ay thus not wholly escape the
charge of hypocrisy in their efforts to preserve P lato ’s auctontas. Yet it is
well to rem em b er that the ap p ro ach to education and culture favored by
the early hum anists im plied a different set of scholarly values from those
c u rren t today, one in w hich a tru th fu l (or critical) presentation of the past
took a decided second place, as a value, to edification. T his was perhaps
inevitable, given the h u m a n ists’ need in the early period of the m ove­
m ent to establish the utility and attractiveness of their own brand ol

t
 164 P A R T III ROME 165

cultural activity. But it p ro m p ted them to em ploy a form of reading in aro u n d the walls of ecclesiastical au th o rity , bo m b ard in g Je ro m e and Lac-
which ethical and rhetorical considerations were p a ram o u n t; m en, tan tiu s w ith charges of inaccuracy and e rro r, and storm ing the citadels
especially young m en, should have alw ays before them in their studies protecting D ionysius the A reopagite and the D onation of C o n stan tin e.
true doctrines and exam ples o f conduct w orthy of em ulation. T h u s in Such sallies aw akened the h u m anists to the destructive possibilities ot
presenting Plato to their readers they im agined, in the high, rem ote their own ways of reading an d in terp retin g texts. T hey also indicated a
world of ancient G reece, fam ous for its w ealthly cities, its arts and its shift in attitu d e (at least am o n g the m ore advanced hum anists) away
know ledge, a Plato who shone in the light of inconceivable virtue and from the pieties of educative h u m an ism in the direction of a m ore critical
w isdom , whose conduct could be a m odel for the good citizen and whose stance tow ards the classical inheritance. Som e of the esoteric barriers
utterances could add w eight to his eloquence. w hich had protected hum anistic texts from adverse criticism began to
T o w ard s the m iddle of the fifteenth century a n u m b er of secular w eaken. New educational techniques, values and objectives m ade it
changes occurred w hich began to alter the ways in which Plato was re ­ easier for students to pass from “ safe” school texts, like V irgil, H orace,
ceived and his works in terp reted . In the first place, the separation b e­ an d C icero, to texts w hich presented a greater challenge to their m oral
tween the h um anities and philosophy w hich A ntonio C assarino had and religious form ation. P rin tin g , and the large-scale, international
deplored grew m uch less m ark ed . H u m a n ists such as V alla, M an etti, organization of the book trade w hich preceded it, intensified the danger.
and G eorge of T reb izo n d began to m ove aw ay from an exclusive concern T h e knowledge of G reek, h itherto lim ited to only a few dedicated p ro ­
with literatu re and m oral philosophy tow ards a m ore serious interest in m oters of the hum anities, was beginning to spread, and it was thus
m etaphysics and dialectic. For their p a rt Italian scholastic philosophers, becom ing m ore difficult to shore up the ram p arts which had protected
like F icino’s teacher Niccolo T ig n o si, began to appreciate the benefits students from the pagan vices of the G reeks, and hum anist teachers from
which hum anism could b rin g to their studies, especially the new the obloquy of philistine critics. All of these developm ents th reatened to
knowledge it had provided o f the G reek text of A ristotle and the G reek destroy the idealistic foundations of h u m an ism , which had b attened on
com m entary trad itio n . In the second place, Plato began to occupy a new its prom ises to renew C h ristian society by ap p ro p riatin g the w isdom , v ir­
position in intellectual life. W hereas in the first half of the Q u attro cen to , tue, and eloquence of the ancients.
Plato was sim ply one new auctor am o n g m any being prom oted by the T h e m ost spectacular exam ple of h u m an ist criticism in fifteenth-
hum anists, hardly d istinguishable generically from the o ther wise and cen tu ry Italy was G eorge of T re b iz o n d ’s attack on the au th o rity of Plato
eloquent ancients, in the second half of the century he becam e the chief in his Comparatio Platoms et Aristotelis of 1458. In this w ork G eo rg e’s
auth o rity of an am bitious m o vem ent of religious reform , a m ovem ent to­ know ledge of G reek enabled him to expose to view precisely the sort of
day know n, perhaps m isleadingly, as F lorentine N eoplatonism . O f this facts about Plato and G reek an tiq u ity in general that a P etrarch, a
developm ent we shall say m ore w hen we come to speak of M arsilio Salutati, or a B runi w ould have been m ost eager to hush up. W hereas
Ficino. the M ilanese critics of D ecem b rio ’s Republic, obliged to rely on scattered
H ere, how ever, m ust be in tro d u ced a third secular change w hich is testim onia in L atin sources, had failed to produce a telling critique of
m ore directly relevant to the m atters treated in this P a rt, nam ely, the rise P lato, G eorge was able to go directly to the G reek text of the dialogues
of serious historical and philological criticism . In one sense, to be sure, and lay out the n atu re and n u m b e r of P la to ’s sins. T h e effort to protect
such criticism had existed from the beginnings of the hum anist m ove­ Plato against G eo rg e’s pow erful explosives w ould cause C ard in al
m ent in the fourteenth cen tu ry . But its attem pts at recovering the past Bessarion to erect anew from the rubble of late antique com m entary the
had usually been o rien tated tow ards d istinguishing the tru e, ancient solid walls of N eoplatonic exegesis which was to g uard the w ritings of the
culture from m edieval “ b a rb a ris m ” . Especially in Florence, it aim ed at G reek sage for the next three h u n d red and fifty years.
m oral and linguistic reform , and had tim idly avoided theological and ec-
clesiological issues. O nce h u m an ism had firmly established itself in
1. George o f Trebizond and Plato
school, court, and chancery, how ever, a new, m ore dangerous b ran d of
criticism m ade its a p p earan ce, especially in M ilan and R om e. G eorge of T reb izo n d (1396 - c. 1472) was born in the V enetian d o m i­
H um anists like Pier C a n d id o D ecem brio, A ntonio da R ho, L orenzo nion of C rete, probably of m iddle-class paren ts, and m ay well have re­
V alla, and T h eo d o re G aza began to wheel the engines of criticism ceived instruction in G reek letters there from the pro to p ap a of C an d ia,
166 P A R T III ROME 167

J o h n Sim eonachis, a m an we have m et earlier as the teacher of R inuccio pointed apostolic secretary. In the same year the papal cu ria returned to
A re tin o .1 T h e opportunities for a literary career being lim ited in C rete, R om e; there G eorge began to lecture in the studium Urbis and initiated
G eorge gravitated to V enice, the capital o f em pire, shortly after his tw en­ his great series of translations of A ristotle’s works on n atu ral philosophy.
tieth year in the quality of G reek scribe to Francesco B arbaro. G eorge H e continued to prosper d u rin g the reign of Nicolas V until, in 1452, an
had higher am bitions, how ever, and with the help of B arb aro — First in undignified public braw l w ith Poggio landed him in jail. H aving m ade
the series of G eo rg e’s V enetian p a tro n s— , he began the study of Latin an enem y of nearly every h u m anist in R om e, especially the m em bers of
eloquence u n d e r the greatest h u m an ist teachers of the day, G uarino C ard in al B essarion’s circle, G eorge upon his release found it m ore con­
V eronese, V itto rin o da Feltre, and (possibly) G asparino B arzizza. H e venient to seek patronage in Naples in the co urt of Alfonso the
m ay also have had the o p p o rtu n ity , like his schoolfellow Francesco M ag n an im o u s. But he could not resist the lure of R o m e, and seems to
Filelfo, to have heard at P a d u a the fam ous logician, Paul of V enice. In have retu rn ed th ith er at alm ost the very instant the election of C alixtus
any case, L atin and G reek letters were clearly G eo rg e’s metier at this date, III in 1455 m ade his recall possible. Aside from trips to N aples and C o n ­
and so, like m any other hum anists, he began his career by serving as stantinople an d a sojourn of two years (1460-62) in V enice, G eorge spent
tu to r and schoolm aster to the scions o f w ealthy u rb an families. A fter a the rest of his life in R om e, dying there aro u n d 1472. -He was jailed twice
b rief sojourn back in C rete, w hich he was forced to leave in 1425/6, he m ore, once (if we m ay trust the testim ony of his enem y, C alderini)
retu rn ed to take up the public chair of L atin in V icenza aro u n d 1426; because of a scandal involving a V enetian girl, and a second tim e in 1466
it was about this tim e that he threw in his lot definitively with the L atin for treason against C h ristendom .
W est by converting to R o m an C atholicism . In 1428, the citizens of T h e rath er startling m isadventures p u n ctu atin g G eo rg e’s career
V icenza expelled him from the city, and he retu rn ed to V enice where he becom e m ore com prehensible w hen we take stock of his tem peram ent
supported him self by tu to rin g p atrician youths. T h ere he w rote his first and opinions. H e was not an attractive character. M an y hum anists were
m ajo r work, the Rhetoncorum libri qumque, which was the first Latin arro g an t, irritable, and suffered from paran o ia, b u t in G eorge all these
treatise to exploit the riches of B yzantine rhetoric. A fter a controversy tendencies were carried to their o u ter term . V alla says he was m orose and
w ith G u arin o in 1437 m ade V enice too hot to hold him , G eorge set out difficult, but gives him credit for being at least fair-m inded. O th er
for Bologna to follow the papal court. B ut w hen the Pope departed for sources describe him as hum orless and in tolerant, and even he him self
F e rra ra and the condottiere Niccolo Piccinino overthrew the pro-papal speaks of his “ in n ata infelicitas” . H e always seems to have regarded
defenders of the city, G eorge was forced to take up a m in o r tu to rin g job him self as an outsider in Italy, and throughout his life he stirred in his
in Bagno di R o m ag n a (A pril 1438-July 1440). H is second m ajor work breast a cauldron of resentm ent against the pow erful and well-connected.
appeared ab o u t this tim e, the Isagoge dialectica, a logic textbook in which As a G reek convert, he felt him self doubly alienated and cam e to depend
(an ticip atin g V alla, A gricola and R am us) G eorge attem p ted to integrate heavily for com fort on the religion he had adopted. In his paranoid and
a sim plified logic into a h u m an ist educational program . m egalom aniac delusions all of his personal enem ies he saw as involved
F rom Bagno G eorge seems also to have visited the C ouncil of U nion in a great conspiracy, not only against himself, b u t against the R om an
at Florence and to have renew ed his connection with the court of C atholic religion. In the course of tim e— it is difficult to say precisely
E ugenius IV . H e had originally m ade him self useful to the pope by his w hen— G eorge cam e to regard him self as a prophet of the last tim es, sent
know ledge of B yzantine theology and by his ability, acquired d u rin g the by G od to w arn C h ristendom of its doom , and ultim ately to convert,
period of his ow n conversion, to m ake telling points against the O rthodox through his m astery of eloquence, the nem esis of C h risten d o m , Sultan
position. W ith such talents it was only a m a tter of tim e before he was M ehm ed II, into its savior. A strange application of h um anistic rhetoric!
called in to advise the R om anists in th eir struggle w ith the opponents of All of this is im p o rtan t for o u r study because P lato, surprisingly
U nio n . From this point on, G eo rg e’s life was centered on the R o m an enough, cam e to occupy the central place in G e o rg e ’s eschatological vi­
curia. In 1440 he purchased the post of ^criptor and in 1444 was ap- sions. W e cannot, indeed, u n d erstan d G eo rg e’s attack on Plato w ithout
u n d erstan d in g the fo rm e r’s role as a prophet sent to w arn the West
' For the chronology and context ot George’s life and works I rely heavily in this sec­ against a revival of paganism orchestrated by a conspiracy of Platonists.
tion on the invaluable studies of John Monfasani ( George of Trebizond and Trapezuntiana),
to which the reader is referred for further documentation and bibliography. The date of G eo rg e’s attitu d e to Plato had not always been so hostile. In fact, as
George’s birth is corrected to 1396 in the corrigenda to Trapezuntiana, pp. 855-856. M onfasani has recently show n, his early train in g in C rete had probably
 168 P A R T III ROME 169

given him som e fam iliarity w ith P la to ’s works and instilled in him an ad ­ G eorge goes on to describe at length the m any deeds perform ed by the
m iration, prim arily literary, for the summus philosophiae magister whom F o u r M en for the salvation of G reece. W ould th at G reece had such m en
C icero had im itated. G eorge con tin u ed to speak adm iringly of Plato until to rescue her today, he felt, threatened as she is so desperately by the
about 1426. Som etim e betw een 1426 an d 1433, how ever, he seems to T u rk ! G eorge, who even after his conversion rem ain ed a fiery G reek
have changed his philosophical allegiance to A ristotle.2*T h e reasons for p atrio t an d a strenuous su p p o rter of a crusade against the T u rk s, could
this early change in his sentim ents are not wholly clear. In his Comparatio hardly help regarding P lato ’s aristocratic disdain for the great dem ocratic
philosophorum Platonis et Aristotelis of 1458, G eorge tells us that he first leaders as close to treasonous. H e then offers an explanation for why
began to hate Plato w hen, read in g the Gorgias with his teacher V ittorino Plato attacked the Four M en;
da Feltre, he becam e aw are of P la to ’s u n p atrio tic attacks on the “ F our Why [did he hate them]? “ They were rhetors,” he said, “ these four. But
M e n ” of A thens, M iltiades, T hem istocles, Pericles, and C im on: rhetoric is a slavish business connected with flattery, not virtue. These men
should rather be called vile yes-men, for they grew famous by fawning on
What I am now going to say has always seemed to me an important matter,
so much so that (I confess) I have hated Plato since I was a young man most the common people and so advanced to power in the state.” ... [But, says
of all for this reason alone, and I decided, if the opportunity ever presented George] it was they who made Athens safe, they who made it rich, they who
made it the leader of all Greece, they who made it famous down to our own
itself, to write something against Plato in defense of the liberators of
day, not by paedophilia, not by loquacious and shameless tongues, not by
Greece, as far as my speaking ability allowed. But perhaps it will be best
calumniating others, but by their vigils, efforts, intelligence, courage, and
to relate the entire matter from the beginning. When I came to Italy as a
young man, I learned the rudiments of Latin with Vittorino da Feltre, a deeds!4
man singular for learning and integrity of life; he in turn received from me T h is passage gives us an o th er reason why G eorge hated Plato; Plato
as much Greek as I could teach him. That was when I first read Plato’s
Gorgias, when I was expounding it to him, and that was when I learned the had condem ned rhetoric. For G eorge, who was trying to m ake his m ark
wickedness of Platonic behavior. How should I not have hated Plato then, as the greatest expert on G reek rhetoric in Italy, this cam e as almost a
when I recognized him as an enemy to all good things? ... I was seized with personal attack; characteristically, he cam e to see it not only as an attack
indignation at his ingratitude, temerity, impudence, and wicked impiety on his own profession, but on good literature in general. N or was George
the one to be fobbed off with the facile in terp retatio n of Q u in tilian , that
Plato had m eant to attack only those who abused rh eto ric.5* W ith his
- See Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 18 and note 78; King, p. 183, note 267.
! Comparatio, III.7: “ Id < q u o d > uero inpresentiarum dicturus sum, ita magnum know ledge of G reek and his willingness to think the w orst of Plato, the
semper mihi uisum est, ut ex adolescentia maxime propter id solum Platonem (fateor) tru e ten o r of P lato ’s arg u m en t could hardly have escaped him ; but
oderim, constituerimque, si opportunitas dabitur, secundum facultatem dicendi meam G eorge is, it would appear, the only hum anist of the fifteenth century ful­
ad defensionem liberatorum Graeciae in Platonem nonnihil conscripturum. Sed melius
forsan est rem uniuersam altius repetere. Cum in Itaiiam adolescens uenissem, apud Vic-
ly to realize the negative im plications of P la to ’s critique of rhetoric for
torinum Feltrensem, uirum doctrina et uitae integritate singularem, prima latinae the h u m anist enterprise. G eo rg e’s hostile reaction to the Gorgias, indeed,
linguae rudimenta percepi, illeque a me uicissim graecam quantum afferre poteram ex- contrasts strongly with that of B runi tw enty years before. B runi had. in
hauriebat. Tunc primum Platonis Gorgias mihi lectus et a me illi expositus est, tunc
Platonicorum morum scelera percepi, tunc quomodo non odi Platonem cum bonorum the end m oved away from Plato, but was always inclined to protect his
omnium hostem esse cognoui? ... Indignatio ingratitudinis, temeritatis, impudentiae,
sceleris impietatis [impietas ed. ] turn dictorum, turn dicendorum me rapuit.” (I quote
here and elsewhere from the text of the Venetian edition of 1523, corrected against it is no more than a topos extracted from Aelius Aristides’ orations 7tept prixopixfii; and
Perugia, Bibl. Comunale Augusta MS C.16 , a microfilm of which was kindly lent to 'TtceP tdiv TETTaptav, which it in many ways resembles. The resemblances are closer to
me by Prof. Monfasani; for problems with the printed edition, see Trapezuntiana, p. 601.) Aristides himself than to the potted versions in Photius’ Bibliotheca, libb. 247, 248, so we
There is some difficulty about the date of this reading of the Gorgias. The description of may suppose the former to have been the source.
George as a youth learning his first Latin letters seems to point to the period around 1418 4 Comparatio III.7: “ Cur? ‘Rhetores erant,’ ait, ‘hi quattuor. Rhetorica uero illiberalis

(Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 12) when George first worked with Vittorino, but as quaedam res est et adulationi, non uirtuti, coniuncta. Quare ipsi quoque assentatores
Monfasani shows, George continued to praise Plato up to 1426. Yet George’s account potius pessimi quam uiri boni appellandi sunt; blandientes enim populo claruerunt et ad
is so circumstantial and (in the context) gratuitous that it carries conviction. I suspect gubernacula ciuitatis peruenerunt.’ ... Illi patriam incolumem, illi opulentam, illi prin-
George in 1458 may have confused this first association with Vittorino with a later one cipem Graeciae totius, illi ad haec usque tempora illustrem, non amoribus puerorum,
in 1431 when he acted as the famous schoolmaster s assistant (ibid., p. 24). This is the non loquaci atque impudenti lingua, non calumniis aliorum, sed suis uigiliis, laboribus,
more likelv as it is improbable that Vittorino possessed a codex of Plato before purchasing ingenio, fortitudine, rebusque gestis fecerunt!”
one from Giovanni Aurispa in 1424 (see R. Sabbadini, Carteggio di Giovanni Aurispa 5 Inst. 11.15.24 f.; it should be noted that George, unlike his enemy Valla, had no great

(Rome, 1931), p. 14). The vehemence of George’s response also makes it unlikely that veneration for Quintilian’s Institutes. See also above, p. 55, and below, p. 327n.
 170 P A R T III ROME 171

reputation; G eorge w ent im m ediately on the attack. Soon after his G eorge was following in the footsteps of other B yzantine intellectuals
reading of the Gorgias w ith V itto rin o , G eorge com posed a speech De such as B arlaam of C alab ria, D em etrios K ydones and D em etrios
laudibus eloquentiae, at the end o f w hich he inserted G o rg ias’ defense of Skaranos who had been driven into the R om an church by the intolerant
rhetoric (456C) against the criticism s of Plato. T his defense was later in ­ anti-intellectualism of the P alam ites.10 A nd the charge of reviving
corporated into G e o rg e ’s rhetorical m asterw ork, the Rhetoricorum libri polytheism was the sam e accusation he w ould m ake, years later, against
quinque.6 the Platonist G em istos Pletho.
A third g round for G e o rg e ’s initial rejection of Plato is m ore T h e evidence suggests, in fact, that G eorge m ay already in the later
speculative, but the evidence in its favor is intriguing. It is in fact m ore 1420s have begun to identify R o m an C atholicism with A ristotelian p h i­
than likely that the seeds of G e o rg e ’s viru len t anti-P latonism were sown losophy and the “ c o rru p t” B yzantine church with Platonism . T his view
du rin g the period of his conversion in the later 1420s. G eo rg e’s conver­ of course was not w ithout foundation, for L atin theology had been deeply
sion seems to have been costly to him em otionally. In a letter to Bessarion influenced by A ristotelianism since the twelfth century, and the educa­
w ritten about the tim e of the C ouncil of U n io n G eorge tells of how he tion of W estern clergy consisted in the first instance of a thorough
was harassed for twelve years by fellow G reeks and even his own parents grounding in the A ristotelian corpus; in the East, on-the other hand, the
because of his decision to c o n v e rt.7 At one point in the late 1420s his extravagant theosophical m ysticism of the H esvchasts who dom inated
father apparently cam e to Italy from C rete expressly to prevent him from Byzantine theology in the fourteenth century m ight easily have been seen
converting, and sent in ad d itio n an orthodox clergym an nam ed J o h n as a version of N e o p lato n ism .11 L ater, in his Comparatio, G eorge would
Cuboclesios to argue him out of his ap o stasy .8 Yet G eo rg e’s conversion hold the Platonists, w ith their doctrine of ontological subordinationism
was no unfam iliar event in the later Paleologan period. For over a cen­ in the G odhead, responsible for the G reek heresy on the filioque con­
tury B yzantine clerics an d laym en (in clu d in g the E m p ero r J o h n V) had troversy (a charge that is also not w ithout historical substance), and the
been converting to L atin C atholicism for a variety of reasons, and the filioque controversy was precisely the issue that G eorge had m ade the
lines of debate had long been laid out. G e o rg e ’s own epistolatory treatise centerpiece of his Contra Graecos f 1 In his later life, too, G eorge frequently
Contra Graecos, w ritten in the later 1420s in defense of his conversion, fol­ m ade it plain that he regarded A ristotelian scholasticism as the chief in ­
lowed well-worn paths. Like o th er “ L a tin o p h ro n ” apologists, G eorge tellectual bulw ark of the R o m an church, while the “ P lato n ism ” ol the
united the au th o rity of the G reek F ath ers (w hich both sides accepted) to G reek church was in his eyes the m ain obstacle to the U nion of the c h u r­
the dialectical techniques of W estern scholasticism in o rd er to build a ches and therefore to the salvation of the East from the T u r k .13 If George
convincing case in favor of the dual procession of the H oly Spirit. H e did see the intellectual landscape in this way already at the tim e of his
brought into his arg u m e n t not only A ristotelian logic, b ut also
A ristotelian physics an d its doctrin e o f the four causes. Significantly, he
evidently because of Palamas’ novel distinction between the essence and the energies of
accused the o th er side in the debate of following G regory P alam as, who God. See J. Meyendorff (note 65, below), p. 82.
(G eorge m ain tained ) had led the G reek church into “ H ellenic 10 It is in this light that we should understand Filelfo’s statement ( Epistolae [1502], f.

polytheism ” in o rd er to escape “ R o m a n tru th ” .9 T his suggests that 217v) that George in his Comparatio had caused to “ burst into flames’' once more the evil
charges made against Plato by Barlaam of Calabria, “ that most impure of heretics” . See
also Legrand, p. 154. Filelfo seems here, curiously, to accept the Orthodox view ot
b Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 258; the text of the De laudibus is edited on pp. Barlaam; for the latter’s actual views, see below, p. 195.
365-369; that ot the preface to the Rhetoricorum libn quinque on pp. 370-372. 11 This view of Hesychasm was, however, historically inaccurate (see below, p. 194).
7 Mohler 3:593, quoted by Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 22, note 94. 12 Comparatio 11.16. After explaining how Platonic subordinationism was responsible
8 See George’s letter Contra Graecos, printed in PG 161: 769-828 under the title De pro- for the Arian and Eunomian heresies, George continues: “ Unde universalis orientalis ec-
cessione Spintus Sancti, col. 769: vuv hi 6 ep.o<; Ssupo 7tXeuaai; ttaxf]p ave-fetpe xe xai ratpa>§uvev, clesia uenosis ac uirulentis saturata cibis funditus corruit; nam qui eloquentia Platonis
aXXa xe noXXa Eutd>v, xai cm au ypd<lma<; av xav eiiOix; 7tpo<; pi 7ce.pt ~f\q twv ’ExxXqaiwv territi attonitique fuerunt, cum ab eo fundamenta didicissent et a seipsis inducti credidis-
Oiaipopdi; si y ’s-fta xouxo 7tp£>xoi; 7roiotpi. The corrections to the text are from Monfasani, sent, creandi uirtutem a primo principio totam esse secundo deo atque creato traditam,
Trapezuntiana, p. 255, which also furnishes the correct title and other critical data. nec posse praeter ipsam filio a patre dari contendebant, et multi ex reliquiis eorum
9 Ibid., col. 781: ’A xo XouGei tori; aoi<; SiSaaxdXot? ’AGavaaico tea iravu, BaaiXeico, KupiXXcp socratico ac platonico spiritu impulsi, synodum Florentinam floccipendentes adhuc con-
xq> Nuaa-ris xai xofc; Xoutoi?. riapd-rtepyov xq> avaGepaxi riaXapav xov iva <puyr) xqv xfj? 'PcopTi? temnunt, adeo ut Machumeto seruire quam cum ecclesia Romana liberi uiuere malint.
hoqav, rjxot xqv aXqGtav aoxr)v, eiq uoXoGefav xai auxffc xfji; 'EXXr]vixfji; TtoXXcp x z'-PCti et<*P®X6 vxa He then goes on to explain that these Platonising heretics are called “ Palamitae”
Ttdaav xf]v ’ExxXTiatav rpatxdjv. The accusation of polytheism against Palamas was nothing (followers of Gregory Palamas) by the Greeks.
new; in the fourteenth century Constantine Harmenopoulos had made the same charge, 13 A point made in Garin (1969), p. 288.
 172 P A R T III ROME 173

conversion, it would help explain why later he reacted so vehem ently to tion for C h ristianity, P latonism had from the beginning poisoned the
the increasing interest in P lato show n by the Italian hum anists of m id- wells of C h ristian doctrine, and had been the secret source of all those m al­
centurv, and why, unlike m ost Italian h um anists, he rem ained wedded adies— heresies, w ars, schism s— which had afflicted eastern C hristianity.
in m any ways to scholasticism .14 A lienated from his parents and country, T h e R om an C hurch had only escaped by clinging tightly to A ristotle,
surrounded (as he thought) by persecutors, his fortune always un certain , w hom D ivine Providence had established as the philosophical shield of
the two unshakeable pedestals up h o ld in g his identity were his rhetorical C h ristian tru th . But Plato th reaten ed C h ristianity not only from w ithin,
abilities and his religion. P lato had show n him self a threat to both. b ut also from w ithout. In the early seventh century a Platonist m onk who
If G eorge had begun to suspect at the tim e of his conversion that the had been expelled from A lexandria for gross im m orality met a dirty and
evil genius of Plato was h overing beh in d B yzantine heresy, his ex­ obscure herdsm an nam ed M oham m ed in Ethiopia, and, draw ing on the
perience at the C ouncil of Florence confirm ed it for him beyond the secret powers acquired from Platonic necrom ancy and dem on w orship,
shadow of a doubt. T h ere he m et G em istus Pletho, a diabolically clever m ade of him the leader of a great world religion dedicated to hedonism
opponent of U nion, and at the sam e tim e (as G eorge believed) a and the eradication of C hristian m orals. Now the descendents ot this
polytheistic Platonist who in his book the Laws had “ vom ited o u t” m any “ second P lato ” had conquered C onstantinople and were pressing on the
vile attacks on C atholic piety. borders of C hristendom . Yet at the very m om ent when C hristianity
I heard him myself in Florence (he was there at the Council with the needed all her m oral arm o r, a “ third P lato ” had arisen, G em istus Pletho,
Greeks) asserting that within a few years the entire world, with one mind to co rrupt the W est from w ithin by casting the poisonous d art of O riental
and one preaching, would adopt the same religion. I asked him, “ C hrist’s P latonism into the very liver of Latin C hristendom .
or M oham m ed's?" “ N either." he replied, “ but one that does not differ Pletho had died only two years past, but a Fourth Plato would surely
from paganism ." I was shocked by these words, and have hated and feared arise to take his place; perhaps he was already here. W ho was this fourth
him ever alter as a poisonous viper.15
Plato? T rebizond does not tell us, but it is clear w here his suspicions
Bv the early 1450s G eorge had com bined these beliefs, prejudices and p o in te d .16 C ard in al Bessarion and the m em bers of his circle had tim e and
enm ities into a unified prophetic vision in w hich the history of philosophy again hindered G o d ’s prophet, G eorge of T rebizond. It had been
and the events of his own life provided a key both for in terp retin g the Bessarion him self who had First brought the “ ath eist” Lorenzo V alla to
secret course of h u m an history and for predicting the causes of the R om e, and aad thus been the proxim ate cause of G eo rg e’s fam ous defeat
Apocalypse. Like other p rophets he regard ed the events of h u m an and by V alla at the U niversity of R om e. T he hum anists of the Bessarion cir­
even of n atu ral history as the direct consequence of the conscious beliefs cle seem ed, m oreover, to have adopted Platonic mores: A ndreas Con-
and actions of h u m an beings. A m isconception of the hypostatic union trariu s, fornication and adultery; Niccolo P erotti, pederasty and in cest.17
m ight cause a w ar, an act of ad u ltery b rin g on a fam ine. W ith such C ard in al Bessarion him self, his persecutor, who had nearly becom e Pope
prem isses it is not perhaps su rp risin g th at he should com e, with the to r­ in 1455, was the greatest contem porary cham pion of Plato. And
tured logic of the fanatic, to infer that P latonism was the great nem esis Bessarion had been a stu d en t of G em istus Pletho!
of C hristian tru th and m orals. T h e great age of A th e n ’s pow er and It is all too easy to ridicule such effusions, and we m ust be careful not
patriotism had com e in the fifth cen tu ry b c ; Plato, with his c o rru p tin g to dism iss them out of h an d , as beliefs which could not possibly have been
m oral doctrines and ridicule of A th en ian institutions, had com e in the taken seriously. O ne has only to rem em ber the career of Savonarola to
early fourth century; G reece fell to M acedon in the m id-fourth century. realize that apparently wild prophecies of this nature were taken quite
Post hoc, propter hoc. W hereas A risto tle’s philosophy was a true p re p a ra ­ seriously indeed in the fifteenth century, even by educated p erso n s.18 Not

“ See Monfasani. G e o r g e oj T r e b i z o n d , p. 1561. 16 See Monfasani, George of Trebizond , p. 159f.

11 C o r n p a r a t i o . 111.21: “ Audiui ego ipsum Florentiae (uenit enim ad Concilium cum 17 Ibid., p. 160. To the testimonies cited by Monfasani may be added an invective ot
Graecis) asserentem unam eandemque religionem uno animo, una predicatione uniuer- Poggio (Opera, ed. Fubini, 2:801) in which he accused Perotti ot being “ pexima
sum orbem panels post annis esse suscepturum. Clinique rogassem, Christine aut cathamita ’. Such charges of course are usually fabrications, but here it is only important
\ I at hut net 1 .5', 'nnim m i. ' inquit. sed non a gentilitate differentem.' Quibus uerbis com­ what George may have believed, not what was in tact the case.
munis. semper odi < et > tit uenenosam uiperam pertimui." On the meeting between 18 Even if George himself seems not to have made very much headway at the court
George and Pletho, see Montasani. G e o r g e of T r e b i z o n d , p. 591. of Pius II. See the tales in Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 140, ot the pope s efforts
174 P A R T III ROME 175

one of G eo rg e’s opponents, in replying to his attacks on Plato, q u estio n ­ B ru n i,21 and kept th roughout his life a belief in the value of political and
ed the credibility of prophecy as such as a source of know ledge, b ut only legal equality and of free com petition for honors an d wealth in the
(implicitly) G eo rg e’s credentials to be considered a p ro phet. M oreover, com m onw ealth. It was therefore natural that he should find him self
in R om e, any paganism or extrem e classicism was likely to be regarded repelled by the elitist au th o ritarian ism of the Laws w hen he grew fam iliar
as an ideological threat to the political au th o rity of the R o m an pontiff, w ith that text in the early 1450s. U nlike B runi, how ever, G eorge had no
as m ay be seen from the conspiracy of Stefano P orcari against Nicolas reason to suppress those of P lato ’s doctrines which w ere “ abhorrent to
V. W e shall see in due course the seriousness with w hich Bessarion and o u r m o res” . O n the contrary, George was eager to expose the chasm
his circle regarded the im plied th reat to them selves of G eo rg e’s anti- which separated P la to ’s theories from fifteenth-century practice. Indeed,
Platonism . G eorge was after all no street-co rn er m aniac, b u t a fam ously his desire to controvert P la to ’s “ u n n a tu ra l” political arran g em en ts drove
learned scholar who had held im p o rtan t posts in m ajor courts and u n iv er­ G eorge to ground the em bryonic liberal republicanism of the period on
sities across Italy. Indeed, although we have for the purposes of exposi­ m uch m ore sophisticated argum ents than B runi had ever produced.
tion isolated the m ore b izarre aspects of G e o rg e ’s beliefs, we shall see that In the Law s, his last work, Plato lays out a plan for establishing and
m any of G eo rg e’s arg u m en ts in the Comparatio are w ell-reasoned and preserving a society of rustic virtue, m odelled distantly on S p a rta .22 He
based on reliable sources. T h e evidence for the text suggests that it had im agines a small (5400 hearths) agricultural town in the interior of Crete,
a fairly wide, intern atio n al audience, and was read by such salient figures whose society is divided into perm anent classes based on wealth. T he
of the early and high R enaissance as S avonarola, D om enico G rim ani, proportion of w ealth betw een the classes as well as its absolute limits are
Jaco p o A ntonio M arcello, Alfonso de Palencia, Diego H u rta d o de M en ­ rigidly controlled. T ra d e and the arts are conducted by resident aliens
doza, Fulvio O rsin i, and M e la n c h th o n .19 So we m ust not let the attitudes whose potentially co rrupting influence is strictly lim ited and supervised;
of m odern rationalism prevent us from seeing the very real im pact citizens are prevented from travelling or from absorbing foreign influ­
G eo rg e’s attack had in the later Q u a ttro c e n to and beyond. ences in other ways; they are m ade to engage in ag riculture, with the ex­
ception of the richest class, upon which the task of ruling principally
* * *
devolves. Political pow er is, however, distributed th ro u g h all classes by
A good exam ple of the p en etratio n G eorge could show in his criticism of m eans of a m ixed constitution, though the small u p p er class has always
Plato, which at the sam e tim e fu rth er illustrates the deeper m otives of his the prepon .ierant voice. Stability and discipline is ensured by a system
antiplatonism , is provided by the censure m o unted in the Comparatio of highly a u th o ritarian laws m aintained by nomophylakes and enforced by
against the political philosophy of P la to ’s L aw s.20 In this critique G eorge a N octurnal C ouncil, whose functions resem ble those of the Consistory
displays a keen aw areness of the political im plications of A ristotle’s in C a lv in ’s G eneva. A lthough Plato has in this w ork abandoned the
hylom orphic psychology and his sep aratio n betw een theoretical and p rac­ higher ideal, described in the Republic, of governm ent by philosopher-
tical reason, while revealing a set of social an d political presuppositions kings, the classic Platonic principle rem ains that an elite with scientific
startlingly sim ilar to those of m o d ern liberal individualism . T his, how ­ knowledge of the G ood should regulate the activities and m orals of the
ever, is not as surprising as it m ay seem at first glance. G eorge w hen still rest of society.
young had been strongly attra c te d to the rep ublicanism of L eonardo D espite (or perhaps because of) his being em ployed by a clerical
b u reaucracy w ith pretensions rath er like those of the Platonic G uardians,
G eorge was thoroughly repelled not only by the p articu lar social a r­
to protect himself from George’s irruptions into the curia, and also George’s own descrip­ rangem ents characteristic of the Platonic state, b u t also by the premisses
tion in Comparatio III.21 of how his prophecies had fallen on deaf ears: “ Non credunt
primates, irati pontifices negligunt, et qui apud eos plurimum possunt, irrident.” The 21 See Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 42; further examples of Bruni’s influence on

members of Bessarion s circle mockingly gave him the nickname of “ Erinnys’’. George, below, note 190. Liberalism and republicanism, nowadays considered as distinct
19 For the owners of codices of the Comparatio , see Trapezuntiana, pp. 600-602. For “ discourses’’, in the fifteenth century had not yet distinguished themselves into separate
Savonarola’s knowledge of the text, see below, note 204; for Melanchthon’s familiarity traditions.
with George, see his Opera quae supersunt omnia, in the Corpus Reformatorum (Halle, 1843), 22 On political philosophy in Plato’s Laws see E. Barker, Greek Political Theory: Plato and
11: 423-424. His Predecessors, 4th edn. (New York, 1951); G. R. Morrow. Plato’s Cretan City: A Historical
20 George’s treatment of Plato’s political thought is contained mostly in chapters 1 1 Interpretation of the Laws {P rin ceton . 1960); Guthrie, 5:321-382; G. Klosko, The Development
and 12 of Book III. of Plato’s Political Theory (New York, 1986).
 176 P A R T III ROME 177

upon which those arran g em en ts w ere based. In attem p tin g to refute what E qually u n n atu ral and (therefore) im practicable were the rigid social
he took to be P la to ’s prem isses G eorge appealed to a n u m b er of general classes of the Platonic state, w hich allowed no possibility for m em bers of
principles. T h e first of these was that only those political arrangem ents the lower classes to im prove their standing in the com m unity. Since m en
would survive which were co nstructed in consideration of h u m an n atu re by n atu re desired to b etter them selves, P la to ’s social regulations would
as it actually exists. As a stu d en t of A ristotelian physics, G eorge knew lead to disunity or despair:
that N ature herself would ultim ately b rin g back to their n atu ral ends
Your policy [George says to Plato] of sowing the seeds of sedition in the laws
w hatever objects were m oved in u n n a tu ra l directions. T h u s Plato, misled at the very founding of your city is ridiculous: when you create great ine­
by his false doctrine that the soul was the true essence of m an, treated qualities between income groups, and make that inequality permanent and
hu m an beings as pure spirits; this m ade him neglect the genuine needs unchanging, you take away all good will both between the classes and
of hvlom orphic hu m an n a tu re , which erro r in tu rn led him to propose towards the commonwealth. How could the lower class possibly embrace .the
higher in love, especially when it is quite certain that it cannot legally enrich
utopian political a rra n g e m en ts— such as the gran tin g of em pty honors
itself by its labors and ascend to a higher class? How can an order which
w ithout m on etary rew ard — which were b o u n d to be unw orkable. is rich in perpetuity not contemn and despise an order which is always poor,
You (Plato] say, “ I lay it down that they [virtuous and capable men] shall and always will be poor? And what man will serve the commonwealth when
be given the highest honors and most important magistracies.” But men he knows he is prevented by law from rising to a higher station even if he
regard as honors only those [rewards] that carry some emolument. You, is a man of genius, even if he willingly undergoes perils, toils, and vigils
however, permit no private ownership of gold, silver, clothing or other and other difficult tasks [for the state]?24
precious things. ... “ [The possession of wealth] is the mark of a fool,” you
C h ristian society, in G eo rg e’s opinion, had already far too m uch of il­
say, ‘‘[to regard honor] is the mark of the wise.” In my view, to desire
wealth is simply human; the man who desires honors [without emolument] legitim ate social divisions; to follow Plato would only add m ore fuel to
is either a fool or preternaturallv high-minded. Men are aroused by a kind the flames of discord, and stam p out the only true basis for distinctions
of appetite to acquire as much wealth as they can for themselves and their of rank, nam ely, virtue:
children. Since man is a composite of body and soul, legislators will allow
the body its needs, too, unless they are idiots. Thus at nature’s command To what end [have I given so many proofs why Plato is wrong to prohibit
the soul grows in newborn children and is made capable of handling affairs resident aliens from citizenship]? So that it may be abundantly clear that
more effectively. But if we are not allowed to look after ourselves and our [his] laws have been extremely harmful to human beings, and will be still
relations, if our labor brings us no private benefit, the soul is cast down and more so, since they are all too likely to appeal to us. For we not only make
made effeminate, and ultimately is reduced to a mere counterfeit of its distinctions between citizens and aliens, but between noble and base, rich
nature. This appetite must not therefore be pulled out by the roots. It is and poor, legitimate and bastard, layman and cleric, celibate and married,
not right or possible to strip souls of considerations of private utility—nor workers and popolo grasso, soldiers and those enjoying an honorable leisure.
is it in the least profitable. You demand the impossible; even if it were possi­ We make so much of all these distinctions that every man thinks only those
ble, it would not be expedient. These things must be tempered by reason, belonging to his own order are really men; all the rest he treats like slaves
not entirely prohibited.23 and criminals. Yet there is almost no distinction made between virtue and
vice: thus virtue has entirely perished.25

23 III. 12: “ Primos honores,” inquies, “ et maximos magistratus iis dari sancio.” Sed 24 Ibid.: “ Illud ridiculum quod incipienti urbi tuae [tu ed. ] statim sedicionum semina
honores illi ab hominibus putantur qui emolumenti et aliquid afferunt. Tu nihil argenti, legibus inseris. Nam cum permagnam [per magnam ed.\ inequalitatem censuum iacias,
nihil auri, nihil uestium aliarumque preciosissimarum rerum haberi priuatim permittas. earaque immobilem ac perpetuam statuas, omnem beniuolentiam ordinum et inter se et
... Stulti hoc esse dices, illud prudentis. Ego autem hoc hominis esse scio, illud autem ad rem publicam tollis. Qui enim poterit fieri ut inferior in censu ordo superiorem amore
.stulti aut altiore quam humano ingenio praediti. Appetitu quodam concitantur homines, complectatur, praesertim cum certior sit non posse legibus ditior [sed om. ms. ] laboribus
Plato, ut quam maximas possint opes et sibi et liberis suis parent. Nam cum homo animal suis fieri, ac ad maiorem censum conscendere, aut quomodo [quo ed. ] ditior in
sit ex animo atque corpore compositum, corpori etiam commoda sua legum latores perpetuum ordo eum qui est semperque futurus pauper sit non contemnat atque
tribuerint, nisi desipiant. Itaque natura duce natis liberis crescit animus et multo maior aspernetur? Rem publicam uero quis colet cuius legibus nec si ingenio pollet, nec si liben-
ad rem gerendam efficitur. Quod si nec nobis nec nostris prouidere licebit, si labor noster tius pericula suscipiat, labores subeat, uigilias ceteraque ardua perpetiatur [perpetratur
priuatim quoque non conferat, deiicitur animus atque effe minatur, et tandem in fucorum ed.], ad maiora [maiorem ed. ] euasurum se sciat?”
naturam redigitur. Non ergo hie appetitus euellendus radicitus est. Nec enim potest nec 25 III. 11: “ Quorsum haec tarn multa de peregrinis ceterisque hominum fortunis? Ut
deglabrandus animus a priuatae utilitatis cogitationibus; nec enim quicquam proficies. aperte pateat Platonis leges plurimum hominibus obfuisse, obfuturasque magis, quia
Impossibilia iuberes: nec, si possibilia essent, conducibilia etiam essent. Temperanda igi- nimium apud nos possunt. Non enim peregrinorum modo et ciuium discrimina tacimus,
tur ratione ista sunt, non ornnino prohibenda hominibus. sed nobilium et ignobilium, diuitum et pauperum, legitimorum et nothorum.
178 P A R T III ROME 179

In like m an n e r, P la to ’s attem p ts to m old h u m an behavior in such a losophy and religion teach, and honorable goods below these w hich every
way that m en w ould p u t the interests of the com m unity before their own m an should establish for himself. For a statesm an to legislate the
are hopeless, shipw recked on the h ard fact that m en can never agree “ highest end an d good” for his citizens is a policy doom ed to failure,
am ong them selves w hat the com m on good is. “ T h e com m on good can ­ given h u m an weakness; but to legislate the m erely honorable good is
not be the ultim ate good of anyone unless all should be of the sam e m ind ty rannical and counterproductive. T h u s G eo rg e’s antiau th o ritarian ism
and will, w hich is extrem ely foolish even to im agine taking place in this is not (like m odern liberalism ) based on skeptical foundations; rather, it
life .” 26 is built on a sense of the ineffectiveness of a uthority in the face of hum an
A nother principle G eorge invokes is sim ple expediency. L ooking at the m oral w eakness, and on a belief in the intrinsic w orth of honest pleasure.
Laws with the realistic political vision of the R enaissance, G eorge saw
Necessarily then everyone who departs from the true end and the true good
clearly the m ilitary w eaknesses P la to ’s legislation w ould entail. It was [which everyone does in this life, as George argues] establishes each for
wholly fanciful to suppose a poor, weak, effem inate and und erp o p u lated himself according to his own judgment an end, and it is unfair and wicked
state such as P lato described could defend itself for a m o n th against other for a legislator to remove him from this end unless it is a disgraceful one.
predatory states; it was a rule of n atu re th at larger and stro n g er bodies He should not do so even if he makes his laws suitable to the true end, for
that end is not to be chosen and obtained by force, but by freedom of the
survived longer th an sm aller o n es.27 W ith o u t rich m erchants to pay for
will. How much more iniquitous then is the man who uses laws to drag
a w ar, w ithout m aterial rew ards or social ad vancem ent for m en who someone away from an end he has honorably set out for himself. I have es­
displayed b ravery and virtue, no state could hope to m ain tain itself. tablished an end in literature, an end in medicine, an end in agriculture,
T h e last general arg u m en t G eorge uses against Plato is also the most an end in trade, and I hope therefrom merely that I shall have honor, in­
interesting, for it is in effect an arg u m en t against the m oral tutelage of come, peace, and eternal praise, and you [Plato] rob me of this hope by
means of laws. You don’t understand that if you take away my liberty,
ancient authorities. It shows us that G eo rg e’s objection to P la to ’s social
bringing despair instead, you are putting the noose around my neck.
and behavioral en g in eerin g goes deeper th an m ere considerations of im- “ B ut,” you say, “ I am offering you a better hope than the one you have
practicality; it also springs from a deep sense of the au tonom y of the fixed on for yourself.” But why [should] you [be the one to propose ends
h u m a n being. H is a rg u m en t, to be sure, is like the earlier ones a to others]? You are a man like everyone else. Isn’t man free? What is this
utilitarian a rg u m e n t in form : coercion takes away pleasure; the state madness? Don’t you see that judgments differ, that pleasures and pains dif­
fer? Perfectly honorable things which I find pleasant you snatch away from
which does not offer, its citizens pleasure loses th eir loyalty; therefore
me and substitute things you find pleasant. You won’t permit me to enjoy
coercion leads to the dow nfall of the state. Yet im plicit in G eo rg e’s arg u ­ things I think to be goods, even if they are honorable, and the things you
m ent are the prem isses that every m an is the best ju d g e of his own good, imagine to be good you would force me to enjoy. But no one enjoys what
and that no m ere m an should have the pow er to regulate the m orals of is forced upon him; enjoyment is a sign of pleasure, but coerced enjoyment
an o th e r so closely. G eorge recognizes, at least tacitly, that a C h ristian is not pleasant. Furthermore, there can be no pleasure where there is not
liberty, but coercion and liberty are incompatible. Therefore coercion and
cannot accept the Socratic and Platonic equation of virtue and know l­
pleasure are incompatible.28*
edge; sin com es from the will, not from ignorance. M ere know ledge of
the G ood, therefore, does not give anyone a license to exercise m oral and
political au th o rity in the state, as P lato held. G eorge does not deny that 28 Ibid, [continuing from the passage begun in note 26]: “ Necessario igitur omnes qui
good and evil are know able. H is position is ra th er th at there exist two a uero fine ueroque bono aberrant proprium sibi quisque pro arbitrio suo constituunt
different kinds of good, a “ tru e end and g o o d” which philosophy and finem, a quo nisi turpis sit, si ui legislator remouet iniquus atque improbus est, non si
etiam ad uerum leges suas finem accommodaret. Non enim ui, sed uoluntatis libertate
ille finis et eligitur et acquiritur. Quanto igitur iniquior est qui a fine quemque suo sibi
saecularium et clericorum, monachorum et coniugatorum, opificum et mercatorum, honeste proposito legibus euellit. Finem in litteratura, finem in medicina, finem in
militum et laudabili ocio quiescentium. Horum enim omnia earn differentiam facimus agricultura, finem in mercatura meum collocaui, speroque me inde solummodo honorem
ut quisque sui ordinis solos homines putet, ceteros omnes quasi in pistrinum dedat. Vir- emolumenta quietem sempiternamque laudem habiturum, et tu legibus hanc mihi spem
tutis et uitii nullum penitus fit discrimen. Itaque uirtus omnino periit.” tollis nec intelligis si libertatem mihi abstuleris desperationemque attuleris, laquaeum
26 III. 12: “ Non enim potest bonum commune ultimus finis esse cuiusque, nisi omnes quo gulam frangam mihi abs te offertur. ‘Sed pro hac tua,’ inquies, ‘spe quam tu tibi
unius iudicii eiusdemque uoluntatis sint, quod in hac uita uel cogitare stultissimum est.” finxisti, meliorem ego tibi propono.’ Quid tu, homo omnium? Non est liber homo? Quae
27 Ibid.: “ Nam quemadmodum robustiora constantiorisque complexionis corpora dementia haec est? Non uides aliud alii probari, aliud alii iucundum uideri? Aliud alii
maiora imminuta [in munita ed. ] diutius plerumque durant, sic ciuitates immo multo triste atque acerbum? Quae mihi iucunda sunt nec ullam turpitudinem habent, mihi eri-
facilius atque tutius quo maiores potentiores opulentioresque sunt.” piuntur et quae tibi iucunda sunt inculcantur? Quae mihi ego bona puto, iis non licebit
 180 P A R T III ROME 18 1

T h u s it was G eorge of T reb izo n d , alone of all fifteenth-century in te r­ T h e Laws (with the ps.-P latonic Epinomis, included as Book X III of the
preters of Plato, who was fully able, o r willing, to appreciate and m ake Laws)31 was translated betw een A pril 1450 and M arch 1451, at the com ­
explicit the practical and theoretical obstacles which stood in the way of m and of Pope Nicholas V , a circum stance G eorge is zealous to point out
a genuine im itation of P la to ’s political doctrines in R enaissance society. in the very first w ords of his preface ( “ Y ou ordered m e, holy father, to
It is significant that it was his violent reaction against Plato which translate the books of P lato ’s Laws into L atin . . . ” ).32 In fact, Nicholas
brought T reb izo n d to construct a kind o f half-way house of political never received the dedication, for G eorge, disgraced by his fight with Pog-
theory in w hich the nascent liberal individualism of the R enaissance gio in M ay of 1452, fell from favor before the dedication copy could be
could survive intellectually u ntil the destru ctio n of m oral teleology in the presented. But with the help of his old benefactor Francesco B arbaro he
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is also notew orthy that G eorge succeeded afterw ards in finding a patro n in the city of V enice, for which
was able to accom m odate such m oral attitu d es (it is too m uch to call them he com posed a second preface which is extant in several red actio n s.33
theories) w ithin the fram ew ork of his ow n basically A ristotelian o u t­ T h e tenor of these prefaces on a casual reading seems to expose a
look— which suggests that the connection betw een the em ergence of streak of hypocrisy in G eo rg e’s expressions regarding P la to .34*T h e pref­
m odern m oral theory and the breakdow n of A ristotelian teleology m ay ace to Nicholas V praises P la to ’s eloquence, learning, intelligence, and
not be as sim ple as some scholars have su p p o sed .29 It m ay not, of course, dioinitas; it m aintains that Plato was sent by divine providence and that
be very pleasant for those who approve of liberal (or “ em o tio n alist” ) his doctrine was a p rep aratio n for C h ristian ity ; it argues (in term s
m oral theory to recognize so repellent a ch aracter as G eorge as their in ­ rem iniscent of Pier C an d id o D ecem brio) that Plato intended his laws
tellectual father. But social pioneers and innovators are, after all, by defi­ m ore for a celestial polity of unfallen m en. In the preface to the Republic
nition, at least a little bit m ad.
He thought he'd make of present of himself, as legislator, to Dionysius .... he thinks
2. Trebizond’s Translations of the Laws and the Parm enides himself another Nestor! ... In the same book [V], see: he thinks his first state [that ol
the Republic, mentioned at Leg. V, 739B 8 f.], where all things are held in common, even
women, will be immortal! ... Look at his impossible customs! ... In Book VI there are
In view of G e o rg e ’s hostility to Plato, it com es as som ething of a shock
naked youths and naked girls. The man ought to be stoned, he’s no philosopher in this
to realize that he translated m ore of him into L atin than anyone else passage. ... In the same passage, see how he forces wives by law to submit to wicked lust.
before Ficino. W hy, one m ay well ask, should P lato ’s greatest enem y ... It is unworthy of a philosopher to sacrifice to celestial and terrestrial gods, yet in the
take such pains to m ake available to the L atin W est the w ritings of the eighth book he orders it—look!—with naked girls! ... The foolish man in the same book
insinuates that he is a god. Look! [Plato says) to abstain from [paedophilia] does not con­
Nem esis of C hrist? T his seem ing co ntradiction has been largely ac­ tribute to virtue! ... Around the middle of the eighth book he expels aliens [from the city;
counted for by M onfasani, who shows that in the case both of the Laws cp. Comparatio III. 11] ... In Book XII the envious man pretends to admire Rhadaman-
and of the Parmenides, G e o rg e ’s tran slatio n s were u n d ertak en unw illingly thus in order to mock him ... In the same Book XII, at the end, he says ‘he who does
not cultivate carefully, for the sake of public virtue, the science of all sciences, especially
at the express orders of a p a tro n .30 the motions of the stars, will never be an adequate ruler’—whence it is clear that [Plato]
himself [wanted to be] the ruler, [etc.]’’ Many of these ejaculations were later developed
trui etiamsi honesta sunt, et quae tu bona esse fingis, his coactus fruar? Fruitur quisque into full-scale arguments in the Comparatio , as will be seen in the fifth section of this Part.
coactus minime; frui enirn iucundum est, coactum uero iucundum esse non potest. 31 As it usually is in the manuscript tradition. The Epinomis is now generally attributed

Praeterea ubi libertas non est, ibi iucundum esse non potest, sed ubi coactio est, ibi liber- to the Platonist Philip of Opus; see L. Taran, Academica: Plato, Philip oj Opus, and the
tas non est. Ubi ergo coactio est, ibi non est iucunditas.” pseudo-Platonic Epinomis (Philadelphia, 1975).
- 9 Alisdair MacIntyre, A f t e r V i r tu e : A S t u d y i n M o r a l T h e o r y , 2nd edn. (Notre Dame, 32 For the date, see Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 73f., and Trapezuntiana, p. 745.

1984). The preface to Pope Nicholas V is published in George of Trebizond, pp. 360-64: “Jussisti,
30 The earlier hypothesis that George’s attack on Plato was purely a rhetorical exhibi­ beatissime pater, ut libros Platonis De legibus de graeca lingua in latinam uerterem....”
tion which did not necessarily express his own views has been thoroughly refuted by On p. 362 he again disclaims responsibility: “ iussibus tuis magis parentes quam nobis
Monfasani, G e o r g e o f T r e b i z o n d , pp. 161-162; see also the violently hostile annotations to confidentes traducere aggressi.” Poor George seems to have been fated to translate works
the L a w s and E p i n o m i s George inscribed in an autograph miscellaneous manuscript containing views at odds with his own: in 1448 he had been obliged by Nicholas V to
(Turin, BNC MS G. 11.36, f. 30r-v), which have now been edited by Monfasani in his translate Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica which in Books XI-XIII argues for the essential
1 ’r a p e z u n t i a n a . pp. 746-747. If Monfasani’s dating of 1451/53 is sound, as it appears to harmony of Platonism and Christianity. But for George’s subversion of Eusebius, see
be. George must have been stewing in hatred for Plato the whole time he was translating below, note 61.
him. The annotations are tilled with remarks such as the following: “ An absurd fellow! 33 For the details, see Trapezuntia, pp. 198-199 and 744-45.

... Throughout Book I he praises wine-bibbing and choral dancing. ... Look! in Book 34 The view of Klibansky (1943), pp. 300-301, following Bessarion, Calumniator

III he opposes himself to the ancient legislators! ... In Book IV: look how shallow he is! IV.16=M ohier 3:627, who quotes extensively from George’s prefaces.
182 P A R T III ROME 183

of V enice, G eorge claim s th at the m ixed constitution recom m ended by everything p ertain in g to the h u m an state (that is, all of philosophy as it
Plato in his Laws was the ex em p lar of the m ost perfect constitution the was then conceived), while u p o n Plato it laid the hope that a state could
world had ever seen, nam ely, that of the p resent-day V en etian state. T h e be b rought to a m ore sublim e way of life th an the present one. Plato, as
hum anistic preface is not, to be sure, a genre rem arkable for its candor, though dream in g , seems to have prepared the gentiles for C hristianity,
and G eorge had his fam ily to feed, b u t one w onders that he should have in that his laws are wholly in ap p ro p riate to the m ores of his tim e, though
found it possible to su b o rd in ate so easily his prophetic m ission to the ex­ suitable to “ th at separate and alm ost divine way of life” . O n the other
igencies of patronage. h and he preserves certain features of his own age, such as a belief in
It m ay not be possible to ex o n erate G eorge entirely of the charge of polytheism , which G od probably allowed him to hold because he w anted
rhetorical insincerity, but a closer look at the prefaces alters som ew hat to show m ost of all through Plato w hat he had show n th ro u g h m any other
the initial im pression. M onfasani notes th at “ G eorge praises P la to ’s p h i­ m en, nam ely, that the h u m a n m ind produces n o th in g perfect and free of
losophy scandalously little .” In fact, the preface to N icholas V is an e rro r unless it is inspired by the H oly Spirit.
obscure and to rtu red d o cu m en t, full o f m ental reservations, faint praise, T h is is not only a far cry from the fulsome praises h u m an ist translators
and backhanded com plim ents. G eorge says that he was so stu n n ed by generally heap on the heads of their pet authors; it also hints furtively at
P lato ’s intelligence, learn in g and divinity th at he c o u ld n ’t find w ords to criticism s G eorge would m ake openly a few years later in his Comparatio:
praise him — so he d o esn ’t. I rem em b er Y o u r H oliness told m e, he says, that Plato was a wildly im practical polytheistic d ream er who wrote, with
about a dispute betw een som e theologians who said that A risto tle’s p hi­ sonorous obscurity, a few statem ents that som e gullible sentim entalists
losophy was m ore suited to this life, P la to ’s to the life of m en in an u n ­ have thought to prefigure C h ristian beliefs.
fallen state. M ost of these teachings of Plato w ere concealed “ per T o u n d erstan d G eo rg e’s praise of the d o ctrine of the m ixed constitu­
integum enta q u aed am et e n ig m a ta ” , b u t a few m ay be fitted together tion in P la to ’s Laws, on the o th er hand, we need to tu rn to the Comparatio
clearly enough to show “ th at Plato seem ed to hope the whole h u m an race of 1458. T h ere, in the th irteen th chapter of Book III, after 250 pages of
m ight be delivered from d istu rb an ces by m eans of his la w s.” H e gives u n in te rru p te d abuse, G eorge adm its that Plato did from tim e to tim e u t­
a few exam ples o f P lato ’s u to p ian views: th at concupiscence itself should ter a few scattered sententiae th at were not wholly vicious, im pious, or
be punished in ad dition to actual m isdeeds; th at anger and desire should im possible. In Book III of the Laws, for instance (at 691E -693E ), Plato
be entirely prohibited; that a law yer who w orked for m oney should be com m ended the m ixed constitution of the S p artan s, and this passage
given the death penalty. M ore m arvelous yet, Plato tau g h t that p arents seems to have been the inspiration for the m o d ern-day V enetian state,
should only be perm itted to p rocreate for a period of ten years, which m arvelous for the perfection an d longevity of its in stitu tio n s.36*W hile this
rem inds one (G eorge says) of w hat the doctors of the church said about is clearly a bit of special pleading intended to help G eorge flog his version
what the b ehavior would be of unfallen m en who obeyed n atu ral reason. before the V en etian S enate, G eorge m ay not have consciously recognized
“ I d o n ’t believe all these teachings because of the vulgar rep o rt that Plato it as such, or thought th at the usefulness of the doctrine justified his
was instructed by the Jew s, any m ore th an [I believe them because] they allow ing Plato to ap p ear in L atin.
were divinely given to him for the benefit of future m e n ,” — the m ore so But surely a few scattered sententiae were insufficient justification for ex­
because we know that D ivine P rovidence has provided great m en from posing the W est to the seductive and pernicious teachings of Platonism ?
different ages an d nations to illum inate h u m a n life, such as M iltiades and
Them istocles (two of the F o u r M en ), C icero, and the m odern students
36 George is more positive about Platonic influence in his preface to the Venetians than
of A ristotelian philosophy and divine science (i.e., the scholastic in the Comparatio. While in the preface he portrays Greek-speaking Italian nobles paging
theologians).35 D ivine P rovidence sent both P lato and A ristotle at about through the Laws in search of a constitution, in the Comparatio he allows for independent
the sam e tim e, com m itting to A ristotle the secrets of n atu re and invention: “ quam rem [i.e., the mixed constitution] soli Veneti, sive abs te [Plato] am-
moniti, sive suopte ingenio intellexerint, et uidisse et fecisse mihi uidentur.” These
passages seem to be one of the sources of Venice’s political myth and have been studied
35 I have interpreted somewhat an ambiguous sentence (Monfasani, George of Trebi- by F. Gilbert, “ The Venetian Constitution in Florentine Political Thought,” in Florentine
zond, p. 361): “ Que omnia non magis crediderim, quod uulgo fertur a Iudeis ilium in- Studies, ed. N. Rubinstein (London, 1968), pp. 463-500; F. Gaeta, “ Giorgio di Trebison-
stitutum fuisse, quam diuinitus illi ad futurorum hominum utilitatem donata, praesertim da, le Leggi di Platone e la costituzione di Venezia,” Bollettino dell’Istituto storico itahano
cum idonea magna ingenia et summos uiros diuersis nationibus atque temporibus (quod per il medio evo e Archwio Aduratoriano 82 (1970): 479-501; Monfasani, George of Trebizond,
diuinae prouidentiae opus est) uitam hominum illustrasse non ignoramus.” pp. 102-103; King, p. 185.
 184 P A R T III ROME 185

Did not G eorge feel his responsibility for hastening the corruption and the end of the first hypothesis) preserved in P roclus’ com m entary, which
fall of W estern C h ristianity? Indeed he did; and we shall shortly see the had been translated into L atin by W illiam of M oerbeke in the thirteenth
steps G eorge secretly took, in his tran slatio n of the Law s, to protect c e n tu ry .40 C usanus was throughout his life deeply interested in P roclus’
C hristen d o m from the siren voice of Plato. version of Platonic m etaphysics, and Proclus had him self laid it dow n that
In the case of the Parmenides, too, it was the exigencies of patronage the Parmenides was the dialogue w herein P la to ’s m etaphysics were most
which forced the anti-p lato n ic pro p h et to becom e the Latin voice of com pletely revealed, so it was n atural that he should wish to confront the
Plato. T h e translation was com m issioned by C ard in al N icolaus C usanus, text in its entirety, even in a L atin tran slatio n .41 G eo rg e’s presence in
probably late in 1458, and G eorge finished it before he left R om e in R om e provided him with the opportunity to do so.
S eptem ber of 1459.37 C u san u s was at that tim e ruling R om e as C ardinal G e o rg e ’s preface to C usanus, once again, reveals no great enthusiasm
Legate in the absence of the Pope, and G eorge desperately needed his for Plato. “ T h e book is so deep with high m atters and so thick with
help to avoid being ruined o r killed in a street w ar he was w aging against arg u m en tatio n that from it P lato ’s intelligence, natu ral shrew dness, and
a neighbor of his. At one point (S ep tem b er 18-21, 1459) C u sanus even m arvelous ability to speak on both sides of the question are readily ap ­
put G eorge up as his guest in the V atican palace in an effort to keep the p a re n t.” 42 As in his other works Plato decided nothing, but gave both
p eace.38 It would have been difficult for G eorge to refuse the patronage sides of the question w ithout saying w hat should be held; he did this,
of so powerful an ally. G eorge says, either from m odesty, from a desire not to seem im pudent,
It is of course no m ystery why the greatest m etaphysician of the age in ord er to avoid criticism , in order to arouse the wits of his hearers, or
should have been interested in P la to ’s Parmenides. C u san u s in fact pos­ because he was following the model of Socratic ignorance. T his sounds as
sessed a nearly com plete collection of the m edieval and early R enaissance though G eorge was following the “ dialectical” in terp retatio n of the
translations of Plato and seem s to have read all of them with ca re .39 T he dialogue, but G eorge also alludes to the “ theological” interpretation.
Parmenides he had previously know n in the tru n cated version (up to 142A, “ H e entitled the book On Ideas, not because the whole book seems ob­
viously to be about Ideas, but since (in my view), w hen he treats mostly
of the O n e, there m ust be no doubt that he is treating of the Idea of the
O n e. ’ ’43 T his last rem ark, as K libansky points out, shows that G eorge can
37 The dating is Monfasani’s (George of Trebizond. pp. 167-170), which corrects Kliban-
skv, “ Plato’s Parmenides," pp. 292-294, 300, who had argued for a date of late 1450 or have had but little com prehension of N eoplatonic m etaphysics.
early 1451. Monfasani, it is true, neglects the important point that the second redaction
ot the Latin version ot the Calumniator explicitly states that George’s preface to Nicolaus 40 Edited in CPM A, vol. 3. The whole of Proclus’ commentary on the Parmenides as

Cusanus antedates the Comparatio of 1458: “ Sic Platonem homo iste, quern paulo ante translated by Moerbeke has now been edited by Steel (q.v.).
[i.e., in the preface to Cusanus] doctissimum, quern eloquentissimum ... nunc [i.e., in 41 See Proclus, Platonic Theology 1.7, ed. Saffrey-Westerink 1:31. On Cusanus’ dialogue

the Comparatio | indoctum, improbum ... fuisse dicit ..." (Mohler 3:627). Nevertheless, with Proclus, see F. E. Cranz, “ The Transmutation of Platonism in the Development ol
I am inclined to think that this witness does not affect Monfasani's case. The assertion Nicolaus Cusanus and Martin Luther,” in Nicolo Cusano agli inizi del mondo moderno. Atti del
of the Parmenides’ priority does not appear in Bessarion’s Greek text, and the entire Congresso internazionale in occasione del Vcentenano della morte di Nicolo Cusano, Bressanone, 6-10
reference to the Parmenides was a later addition of Bessarion’s to his original text, as is settembre 1964 (Florence, 1970), pp. 73-103. Cusanus’ acuity as an interpreter of Proclus
clear from Mohler's apparatus. Monfasani has shown (see below, note 136) that Niccolo was noted by his secretary, Giovanni Andrea de’Bussi, who told how the Cardinal’s con­
Perotti, not Bessarion, was responsible for the second and more elegant Latin version of jectural emendations of some work of Proclus had been vindicated by the discovery ol the
the Calumniator which appeared in the editio princeps of 1469 and all subsequent editions, exemplar. See the preface to his edition of Apuleius, printed in Rome in 1469: “ [Nicolaus]
including Mohler’s. Even though Perotti’s new redaction was probably confected from Proclum habebat Platonicum mendosissime scriptum. Acri tamen ingenio adeo ei rei intel-
an earlier Latin version of Bessarion rather than from the Greek, neither Perotti nor ligendae institerat, ut etiam ex mediis librariorum mendis solidam rerum eliceret
Bessarion, I suspect, was very concerned with chronological accuracy; the report in the ueritatem. Quod ea ratione perspectum est, quia deinde oblato forte fortuna uero quodam
second Latin version that George’s attack on Plato had been preceded by praise of him exemplari ita inuentus est Proclus ipse scripsisse, ueluti Nicolaus ingenio suo fuerat coniec-
is probably meant to refer mainly to the passages from George’s prefaces to the Laws tatus” (B. Botfield, Prefaces to the First Editions of the Greek and Roman Classics [London, 1861 [,
quoted in the previous paragraph of the Calumniator. In the most recent edition of his Con­ p. 73). If there is any truth in this flattery, it must refer to conjectural emendations of one
tinuity of the Platonic Tradition (Munich, 1981), Klibansky accepts Monfasani’s dating. For of Moerbeke’s translations of Proclus rather than the Greek original.
further details regarding the composition of the Calumniator, see below, note 136. 42 Trapezuntiana , p. 303: “ Est autem liber sic et altitudine rerum profundus et argumen-

Montasani. George oj Trebizond, pp. 142-143. torum crebritate refertus ut facile hinc Platonis ingenium et naturae acumen et disserendi
“ See Cat. G, Index 4; G. Santinello, “ Glosse di mano del Cusano alia Repubblica di ad utranque partem mirabilis facultas eluceat.”
Platonc,” Rinascimcnto, ser. 2, 9 (1969): 117-145, who notes that the glosses which appear 43 Ibid.: “ De ideis vero inscripsit, non quod aperte totus liber de ideis esse videatur,

in Cusanus' manuscript are in fact merely copied from P. C. Decembrio's apparatus (see sed quia, mea quidem sententia, cum de uno maxime agatur, de idea unius agi ambigen-
App. 7). dum non est.’’
186 P A R T III ROME 187

T h e translation did not enjoy a great success, surviving in fact in onlv G eorge recognizes that a strict w ord-for-w ord ren d erin g spoils the
a single m a n u sc rip t.44 T h is is a su rp risin g circum stance, given the wide rhetorical and literary effects of the original com position, m aking the
popularity of G e o rg e ’s o th er translations an d the absence of a com peting w ork needlessly difFicult to grasp. But, like the m edieval translators, he
version of the com plete dialogue before the ap p earance of F icin o ’s version also believes th at freer ad sensum versions of philosophical or theological
in 1484. M onfasani conjectures th at C u san u s suppressed the translation works tend to cut an au th o r down to the size of his tran slato r’s
in em barrassm ent upon learn in g of G e o rg e ’s Comparatio later in 1459. philosophical und erstan d in g . T h is leads him , in the preface to his
G eorge would of course have had his own reasons for suppressing the v e r­ translation of D em o sth en es’ De corona (1444/1446), to propose that the
sion, especially since he h ad not been able, in translating it, to take the m ethod of tran slation em ployed should in every case be adapted to the
same m easures to “ expose” P lato as he had in his translation of the Laws. genre of work being translated:
Despite its small diffusion, how ever, the text was not w ithout influence, There is no one way to translate; rather, the method should be varied in
for it was studied closely by C u sa n u s him self, by Bessarion, and a p p a re n t­ accordance with the subject matter. Things that are sublime and difFicult
ly by M arsilio F icin o .45 O n the basis of his study of the translation, to understand or to sense—things which are quite often ambiguous for the
Bessarion was later able to assert that G eorge “ had not ren d ered , but very authors themselves—[such things] the translator should express literal­
ruined the w o rk .” 46 G e o rg e ’s tran slatio n enabled C u san u s, on the other ly rather than according to the sense, lest, in following the sense as he
understands it, he should happen to neglect other deeper and better senses.
hand, (who did not read G reek w ith facility) to appreciate for the First tim e ... Only the utterly ignorant will doubt that this method of translating is
the dialectical ch aracter of the dialogue. F rom P ro clu s’ co m m en tary on suitable to the Holy Scriptures and the works of Aristotle. In translating an
the First hypothesis he had already absorbed a strict N eoplatonic in te r­ historian, [on the other hand], the translator will not concern himself with
pretation of the dialogue w hich identiFied the O n e of the dialogue w ith the the words, but, having once understood the entire subject, he will be per­
O ne of N eoplatonism , beyond being or know ledge, yet the source of all mitted to translate it after his fashion, more loosely or more strictly, so long
as he observes the diction proper to the genre of history. The translator who
being and know ledge. C u s a n u s ’ new acq u ain tan ce with the whole of the wants a Greek orator to speak Latin, however, must not merely avoid
dialogue did not cause him to ab an d o n this in terp retatio n , b u t it m ade misunderstanding the words, he must not only follow his author’s sense,
him aw are of the logical as well as the m etaphysical ch aracter of the but more importantly he must reproduce in Latin, as far he can, the type
dialogue, and m ay even have influenced his own speculative m eth o d .47 of speech and the variety of [his author’s] diction.49

* * * G eorge explains fu rth er th at in tran slatin g “ m ore su b lim e” works

belonging to the First class one m ust pay atten tio n to w hether the author
In the course of his tran slatin g activity, G eorge developed w hat is, in is speaking clearly or obscurely, and ren d er him accordingly. If the
appearance at least, a sophisticated m ethod of ren d erin g G reek into tran slato r thinks he can in terp ret an obscure or am biguous passage cor­
L atin which synthesizes the m edieval and early hum anistic techniques of rectly, he should w rite his in terp retatio n in the m arg in rath er than in­
tran sla tio n .48 Like B runi an d oth er hu m an ists of the early Q u attro cen to , tro d u cin g it into the text:

44 See Cat. A, no. 379.

45 See Monfasani, Trapezuntiana , pp. 747-748, for marginalia in the hands of George,
Bessarion, and Nicholas of Cusa; some of these are discussed below in App. 11. For
Ficino’s study of the MS, see below, Vol. II, App. 18A.
46 Bessarion, Calumniator IV. 17 = Mohler 2:624: ouSsv oxi pj] nXdxcova Ttveovxo? 49 Trapezuntiana, p. 94: “ Non enim unus modus in traducendo est, sed pro rerum
sppriveCaai Seov, Ttdvrrj napecpGapxe (omitted in the Latin version). See also Bessarion’s cor­ subiectarum varietate varius atque diversus. Qui ardua, sensu intellectuque difficilia, et
rections, discussed in App. 11. plerumque vel apud ipsos auctores suos ambigua in aliam linguam vertit, is verba magis
47 On all this see the detailed discussion of Klibansky (1943), pp. 304-310. exprimat quam sensum ne, cum eum sensum sequatur quern ipse capiat, alios negligat
48 On George’s translation technique see also Monfasani, George of Trebizond, pp. 76-79, forte meliores ac altiores. ... Hanc traducendi rationem divine scripture Aristotelisque
152-154. We have already noted in the case of Pier Candido Decembrio (p. 120f., above) voluminibus convenire nemo nisi omnino imperitus dubitabit. Qui historicum aliquem
a similar conviction that the technique of translation should be varied in accordance with vertit, is de verbis nihil laboret, sed cum rem totam percepit, latius strictiusve, dum
the genre of work being translated; an analogous system was advocated by Filello; see L. historico genere dicendi utatur, earn more suo in Latinum vertat licebit. Qui autem
Gualdo Rosa, “ Una prolusione inedita di Francesco Filelfo del 1429, rielaborata dal figlio oratoris alicuius Greci orationem Latinam lacere cupit, is ignorare non debet non verba,
Gian Mario nel 1467,” in Francesco Filelfo nel c/uinto centenano della morte, Medioevo e non sensum illius solum sibi sequendum, sed multo magis orationis genus et dicendi
Umanesimo, 58 (Padua, 1986), p. 278. varietatem Latine, quantum facere potest, esse exprimendam. ”
 188 P A R T III ROME 189

(The translator) must so understand what he translates that he incor­ T h e trouble with G eo rg e’s technique of varying his m ethodology in ac­
porates (so to speak) ambiguous passages ambiguously, clear passages cordance with genre is that he thereby invokes two contradictory views
dearly, and passages ol middling clarity with middling clarity.30 of the n atu re of language. O n the one h and there is the late ancient and
The faithful translator will render clearly what Aristotle has written clear­
ly. and what Aristotle has written ambiguously or obscurely he will render m edieval belief (recently revived by C hom sky) in a universal g ram m ar
in a similar fashion. Thus each one will balance out each matter in propor­ com m on to all h um an beings. In its m edieval form it presupposes a fun­
tion to his own intelligence. If you think some obscure passages are clear dam entally Platonic view of language in which the signs and structures
to you, or if you feel sure of the meaning of an ambiguous passage, write of one language are interchangeable with those of another, both being
what you think in the margins (as I do as a rule); don’t mix up vour own b u t reflections of or symbols for the u n ch anging objects of thought. In
opinions with those of others. Thus Aristotle will be whole and entire, and
vour own opinion not unknown.31 the case of inspired w ritings, or works whose profundity is supposed to
exceed the norm al grasp of h u m an beings, the words, syntax, and even
T hese passages reveal certain preconceptions about the n atu re of the w ord-order of the au thoritative text becom e a kind ol epiphany ot
language and the purpose of literatu re w hich are w orth exam ining for the supra-sensual reality, so that for an in terp reter to alter them is a sign of
light they shed on G eo rg e's translations of Plato. G eorge, unlike some of colossal arrogance, as though a m ere tran slato r could plum b the depths
his hum anist contem poraries, evidently believed that the educational and of an A ristotle or even of R evelation itself. H um anists like Leonardo
rhetorical aim s of philosophical or theological literature were subordinate B runi, on the other hand, evolved a m ore historical view of language, in
to scientific aim s; that the tru th which resided within au th o ritativ e texts which m eanings were a social product, varying from period to period and
needed to be elicited before that tru th could be m ade m orally effective from society to society. C orrect translation was only possible by research
through the rhetorical art. O n the o th er h an d , G eorge agreed with his into the historical reality which had produced the linguistic m atrix. T he
hum anist predecessors (and disagreed with the m odern social scientist) tran slato r m ust use his knowledge of the ancient world to grasp the sense
that the purpose of history was to instill prudence and m oral virtue by of w hat his au th o r was saying, then try to express that sense, so far as
exam ple and vicarious experience, so that the task of the tran slato r in the possible, in w ords peculiar to his own culture. A literal translation such
case ol an historical work was sim ply to recreate such experience and ex­ as G eorge wished to em ploy for “ su b lim e” authors would thus inevitably
am ples in his own w ords. T h e purpose of a work of oratory in the fif­ falsify them because it assum ed an exact correspondence betw een ancient
teenth century, finally, was to provide a m odel for eloquence, a repertory and m o d e r culture. G eorge seems unaw are of the conflict.
of rhetorical devices; hence G eorge concluded that the tran slato r should, T h e m ethodological conflict im plied by G eo rg e’s approach to tran sla­
when translatin g speeches, aim to repro d u ce as m uch of his art as possi­ tion illustrates well the contradictions created by the endeavor on the part
ble. Practically speaking, this m ean t im itatin g his inventio and disposition of some hum anists (and some scholastics) to integrate hum anistic with
the tran slato r who tried to im itate with any rigor his elocutw, or style, m ore traditional herm eneutical m ethods. T hough it is possible to see
would end up sounding inept and foolish, like som eone im itating the G eo rg e’s problem as an effect of m edieval backsliding, a consequence of
bodily m otions of an o th er p e rso n .32 his peculiar relationship with the scholastic tra d itio n ,*1*53 it m ay also be
seen as a result of the expanding philosophical horizons of m id-fifteenth
Ibid.: "Intelligat tamen ita oportet quod transfer! ut ambigue ambigua, certiora
certius. media medio quodam modo complectatur. century hum anists m entioned at the beginning of this chapter. As the
11 This passage occurs in an attack by Trebizond on Theodore Gaza’s translation of hum anists began to broaden their cultural em pire into speculative philos­
Aristotle’s P r o b l e m a t a , in Mohler 3:298-299: “ Fidus interpretes, quae Aristoteles dilucide ophy and theology tow ards the m iddle of the Q u attro cen to , they did not,
senpsit, ea dilucide, quae ambigue aut obscure, ea similiter traducit. Sic enim pro in-
genio quisque suo singula examinabit. Si vero nonnulla obscura liquide tibi patere putas at first, aim to displace m edieval m ethods of translation. R a th e r— in the
aut ambigua tibi certiora esse ducis. in marginibus. sicuti nos facere consuevimus, quae case of D ecem brio, Filelfo, and T reb izo n d at least— they sim ply com ­
sentis, scribe nec tua cum aliems commisce. Ita enim et Aristotles integer erit, et senten- bined the hum anistic ad sententiam technique with the traditional ad verbum
tia tua non erit ignota.”
T r a p e z u n t i a n a , pp. 94-95. Having said that in translations the e l o c u t w is that of the
technique recom m ended by Je ro m e , using the form er for literary texts
translator rather than the author. George somewhat contradictorily goes on to say that
he has in tact satistactorilv expressed much of Demosthenes' style (p. 95): “ His ra- satis expresserim.” This is rather close to what Bruni says in his D e r e c ta i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,
iionibus inotus, ita traduxi ut non sensum argumentorumque vim solummodo integre see my translation in T h e H u m a n i s m o f L e o n a r d o B r u m , pp. 217-229.
servarim, quod traduccntis olficium est. verum etiam clausulas, numeros. membraque 53 As does Eugenio Garin in an article in S t o n a d e l l a l e t t e r a t u r a i t a l i a n a , ed. E. Cecchi
ipsa proportione serums adeo exacir pro viribus sum ut genus dicendi Demosthenicum and N. Sapegno, 8 vols. (Milan, 1965-69), 3:55; see also Garin (1969), p. 288.
190 P A R T III ROME 191

and the latter for theological and scientific texts. Plato thus becam e an tra n sla tio n ,55 while the Law s, being a political dialogue, could be
im portant test case, for he was both a “ lite rary ” a u th o r, praised by ren dered m ore freely as a w ork of literature. H e m ay also have thought
C icero for his eloquence, as well as a “ theological” a u th o r, the hidden that a slovenly version of Plato was less likely to go unnoticed in the
source of pagan divinity. T re b iz o n d , as we shall see, was the first of familia of C u sanus than in the court of N icholas V. O n the other hand
P lato ’s translators to recognize this dual role. G eo rg e’s spiteful and m alicious m istranslations of the Laws (and to a
lesser extent of the Parmenides) were probably intended to help destroy
* * *
P la to ’s authority in the L atin W est. Indeed, some of T re b iz o n d ’s later
We are now in a position to u n d e rsta n d G e o rg e’s procedure with respect criticism s of Plato in the Comparatio depend upon the m istranslations and
to his translations of the Laws and the Parmenides. T hese versions present willful m isconstructions m ade in his L atin version of the Laws.
certain peculiarities which set them off from the o ther fifteenth-century G eorge was not, however, allowed to pass off his translations as the
renderings thus far exam ined. In the first place, there is a m arked dif­ pure accents of Plato w ithout opposition. C ard in al Bessarion in fact
ference between the technique of tran slatio n em ployed in the Laws and devoted the fifth book of his In calummatorem Platoms56 to destroying
that used in the Parmenides. T h e latter dialogue is translated almost G eo rg e’s translation of the Laws. G oing book by book through the work,
literally, and for the m ost part accurately, although there are num erous Bessarion located 255 errors G eorge had m ade, which, Bessarion
m ore or less serious failures to u n d e rsta n d the adm ittedly subtle asserted, were but a fraction of the to ta l.57 Yet B essarion’s examinatio,
m etaphysical a rg u m e n ts.54 T h e Laws on the other h an d is rendered in though for the m ost part justified in its criticism s,58 is at once unfair and
the freest possible fashion, w ith frequent om issions, parap h rase, and m isleading. T h e great b urden of the first four books of the Calumniator
sim plifications. T h e version is m oreover a slovenly and evidently a hasty is to show that G eorge is ignorant of philosophy and an incom petent in­
piece of w ork, pullulating with gross erro rs of every kind; so m uch so, terp reter of Plato. T h e fifth book caps B essarion’s arg u m en t by attem p­
indeed, that P la to ’s sense is often m ade incom prehensible, silly, or self­ ting to dem onstrate that G eorge is incapable of u n d erstan d in g even basic
contradictory. G reek vocabulary and syntax. T h e sarcastic refrain is repeated again and
T his points to a second peculiarity of G eo rg e’s translations of Plato. again: “ Is this wise and learned m an, who cannot even distinguish 35678*
W hereas earlier hum anistic translations o f P lato had shown a tendency
to idealize him as the grave and sententious sage of trad itio n , bow d­
35 See George’s preface in Trapezuntiana, pp. 303-304, especially the second paragraph,
lerizing or C h ristian izin g in ap p ro p riate passages, G eorge seems deter­
where George says that Plato used a straightforward and unornamented style in this work
m ined, rath er, to present Plato in the w orst possible light. Som etim es (unlike in his other works) because of the high and profound nature of the subject matter:
this is done by im porting an alien extrem ism into P la to ’s w ords, som e­ “ Hinc lit ut retrusas res atque abditas, quantum ornatius dicere coneris, tantum minus
tim es by em ploying a straight-faced literalism to reduce him to ab ­ explices; communiores contra, nisi ornate dicas, ne dicere quidem videaris.”
36 The Calumniator will be discussed in more detail below, p. 245f. The fifth book of
surdity; occasionally there are even conscious attem pts to pervert P lato ’s the Calumniator is not found in Mohler’s edition; I shall therefore be quoting from the
sense so that he appears foolish, heretical, or m orally vicious. T his Aldine edition of 1502, ff. 85r-105r.
37 Ibid., f. 85r: “ Exponam autem non omnes eius errores. Longum enim id admodum
tendency in G eo rg e’s version is far from being system atic, but it is
esset, cum nullus sit locus qui uacet errore.” f. 105r: “ Sed haec quamuis pauca ex
m arked enough to have raised serious questions for L atin readers about plurimis, satis tamen ad huius libri errores indicandos esse existimauimus; eundem enim
P lato ’s rep u tatio n for wisdom and virtue. modum quern in ceteris omnibus libris tenuimus, in hoc quoque postremo censuimus
esse seruandum, ut non omnes aut plurimos, sed aliquot duntaxat errores notaremus
T h e reasons for these peculiarities o f G eorge’s versions will be
quibus satis iudicari quanta esset interpretis peritia posset.”
obvious from w hat has earlier been said of G eo rg e’s opinions, his 38 I have studied Bessarion’s criticisms against the Greek text and George’s translation

patrons, and his theory of translatio n . T h e different m ethods em ployed only for Book I of the Laws (41 of the 255 errores). I believe Bessarion’s criticisms are
in tu rn in g the Parmenides and the Laws into L atin are likely to be a con­ substantially correct in every case but one (at 626A 4 = f. 85v), although there are at least
two other instances where Bessarion corrects George’s mistakes with mistakes of his own.
sequence of the different contents o f these works. G eorge, it would In two places he misquotes George, perhaps unintentionally. A fair number of the correc­
seem , in some degree accepted the ancient N eoplatonic view of the tions are trivial at best, and Bessarion is not above exaggerating and quoting out of con­
Parmenides as a theological w ork, and hence felt that it d em anded literal text to make George’s errors seem worse than they are. George wrote a rejoinder to
Bessarion’s Calumniator (printed by Monfasani in Trapezuntiana. pp. 161-188) which con­
tains (pp. 173-175) a rather half-hearted defense of his translation. See further below,
54 See App. 11. Vol. 2, App. 1 1 .
 192 P A R T III ROME 193

ornicron from omega, the one to set him self up as a critic of P lato?” 59*But
3. Pletho and the Plato-Aristotle Controversy
to say that G eorge was an in com petent H ellenist was a serious distortion
of the tru th , as Bessarion m ust have known.*30 G eorge no doubt makes W e tu rn now to the fam ous controversy of the m id-fifteenth century be­
some unin ten tio n al m istakes of vocabulary, syntax and idiom , as do all tw een the partisans of Plato and of A ristotle, an episode which brings to
other fifteenth-century translato rs, but there are m any passages where he a head m any of the difficulties that had beset W estern adm irers of Plato
gives perfectly good and accurate renderings. M ost of his Parmenides in the first half of the fifteenth cen tu ry .62 Its im portance for our subject
(philosophical errors aside) is accurately enough tu rn ed into L atin, and is twofold: on the one hand it shows us why and how the late antique and
m any passages oi' Laws / (at least) are sufficiently faithful— and these two B yzantine trad itio n of N eoplatonic exegesis acquired value for W estern
dialogues present the most difficult G reek in the Platonic corpus. M o re­ in terp reters of P lato, and on the other, it gives us im p o rtan t clues as to
over, m any of the same m istranslated w ords and phrases Bessarion cor­ the reasons for the appeal of Platonism to the W est in the later fifteenth
rects are found correctly translated elsew here in G eo rg e’s versions, which century. W e shall not treat in detail the earlier part of the controversy,
argues that it was not m ere ignorance that led to G eo rg e’s m istransla­ w hich was conducted alm ost exclusively in G reek and had little influence
tions. T he true state of affairs seem s to have been rath er different. u p o n L atin read ers;63 instead, we shall focus on the two m ajor texts of
V ladim ir N abokov says som ew here that a good tran slato r m ust su r­ the later, “ L a tin ” stage of the quarrel, G eorge of T re b iz o n d 's Comparatio
render his identity to his au th o r to the point w here he cares as deeply for and B essarion’s In calumniatorem Platonis. T hese texts are the most
that a u th o r’s rep u tatio n as the au th o r does himself. G eorge, by contrast, philosophically sophisticated works to em erge from the L atin stage of the
was so filled with contem pt for Plato, and so convinced of his m align in ­ controversy, and illustrate the striking changes in herm eneutical m ethods
fluence, that he w anted him to a p p e a r as foolish, co rru p t and dangerous w hich app eared in the course of the q u a rre l.64*
as he could.61 A b rief account of the earlier stage of the controversy will, however,
be necessary to place these works of T reb izo n d and Bessarion in their
See ibid., f. 8 6 v = 634A 2, and similar remarks passim. p ro p er light. It will also serve to introduce the figure of G em istus, or, as
"" At various points in Book V Bessarion shows a consciousness of the real causes of
George's faulty renderings, as at 647C 8 = Calumniator (1502), f. 8 8 r = Vat. lat. 2062, f.
13v. Plato has dip’ oux avatu^uvria auppaXXovxac atixov xai "pocrrupvdCovxac vixav 8 ei tioietv
8 iap.ax6 u.evov auxou Tats f|8 ovats; ("Must we not ensure his victory in the conflict with his
own lust tor pleasures by pitting him against shamelessness and training him to face reprehendi possunt, sed ea quae dicta sunt satis multa esse, opinor, ad ostendendum iure
it?''), which George translates maliciously as "Nonne ipsum impudentiam [in impuden- nobis Judaica Platonifs] anteferri’’ (quoting from the editio pnnceps printed by Jenson at
tiam B e s s .] iniicientes aut uoluptates suas aut formidinem [fortitudinem B e s s . ] uincere Venice in 1470, [f. 133rJ).
pugna hortamur?" Bessarion remarks "Cur autem contrarium adversarius [i.e., 62 For an account of the controversy with bibliography see Monfasani, George of Trebi­

George) dixerit aut quid sibi tandem uelit, non satis intelligo." zond, pp. 201-229; idem, "II Perotti e la controversia tra platonici ed aristotelici,” Res
M A parallel case is offered by Trebizond’s translation of Eusebius’ Praeparatio publica litterarum 4 (1981): 195-231; B. Tatakis, La philosophic byzantine, Suppl. 2 of Histoirc
Fvangelica (tor MSS and printed editions of which see Trapezuntiana, pp. 721-726). Mon- de la philosophic (Paris, 1949), p. 281 ff.; Garin (1983), chapter 5; Woodhouse, passim,
tasani points out (George oj Trebizond , pp. 78-79) that George omits Book XV (which was esp. chs. 11, 13, 15, and 18; C. Bianca, " Auctontas e veritas: II Filelfo e le dispute fra
not in his MS) and treats the other fourteen books very freely, seemingly as a result of platonici e aristotelici," in Francesco Filelfo net quinto centenano della morte, Medioevo e
<i papal order to expurgate the text of Arian heresies. In fact, Books XI through XIII umanesimo 58 (Padua, 1986), pp. 207-247; C. J. G. Turner, "The Career of George-
at least, which contain Eusebius’ comparison of Platonic with Judaic philosophy, have Gennadius Scholarius," Byzantion 39 (1969): 420-455. The basic authority is still Mohler,
been condensed to about one-half their original length. George excises unsystematically 1:346-398, who edits the Calumniator and many other texts from the controversy in his
many of Eusebius' praises of Plato and waters down others (for instance, at XII, 1, 1 vols. 2 and 3. For the ancient background and the sixteenth-century continuation of the
[ = ed. des Places, 12: 35] making Eusebius’ auvq>8 £a of Plato and the Hebrews into mere controversy, see F. Purnell, Jr ., Jacopo M azzom and H is Comparison o f Plato and Aristotle,
dependence, defluxisse). In some other cases, George puts his own sentiments into diss. Columbia, 1971.
Eusebius' mouth, as XII, 21, 14 ( = des Places, p. 464), where Eusebius has SfjXa 8 e xai 63 See App. 12 for a discussion of the influence of the Greek texts of the controversy

xa nXa-ctavoi; £v oi? pupta eupou; < a v > aveiuXrprca, a>v 8 f| paXtaxa tcov trap’ au-cto xa aepva upon Latin readers.
xai xpaxiaxa a7ro8 £x6 p£vot xou; pf) xoiouxoi? paxpa x°^P£tv <P<*p£v. AXXa yap xouxtov w8 e 64 The other Latin texts of the Plato-Aristotle controversy are listed in Monfasani,

8 te?cu8 eup£vcov aTxooouetcrri^ xe ai’xia^ 8 t’ rjv ou xaxa IlXatcava cptXoaofetv eyvcuxapev. ("With­ George of Trebizond, pp. 201-229, and are still for the most part unpublished. See also
out a doubt there are also [enactments] of Plato in which you may find thousands of ir­ below, pp. 208-216. Most of them either repeat arguments from the two major texts or
reproachable things, whereot we especially welcome what is excellent and grave in him, simply collect ancient authorities which prove Plato’s "holiness" or the opposite. Their
and bid farewell to that which is not of this character. But now we have travelled far lack of influence in the Latin West is indicated by the fact that most of them are either
through these matters and have shown cause why we have decided not to philosophize lost or survive only in a few manuscripts. Editions ot the unpublished Latin texts from
in the manner ol Plato"). George translates: " Innumerabilia in Platone sunt quae the controversy are being prepared by John Monlasani and Frederick Purnell, Jr., and
Prof. Monlasani is, in addition, engaged in writing a monograph on the entire episode.
 194 P A R T III ROME 195

he cam e to call him self, Pletho (ca. 1360-1452), the th in k er who m ust be the H esychast belief in psychosom atic p ray er and quasi-physical divine
considered the fountain h ead for the N eoplatonic revival of the later energies m ust have seem ed philosophically ridiculous. It is equally
Q u attro cen to . m istaken to believe that the early anti-P alam ites w ere either all pro-
It has som etim es been asserted that the Plato-A ristotle controversy of W estern or exclusively A ristotelians. G regory A kindynos, G eorge
the fifteenth century was but a reen actm en t on Italian soil of the L apithos, and N icephoros G regoras were all a n ti-L atin b u t also adm irers
H esychast controversies of fo u rteen th -cen tu ry B yzantium . O n this view, of Plato. Even B arlaam , as has recently been sh o w n ,67 rem ained du rin g
the H esychasts represent the native, “ P lato n ic” trad itio n of the O r­ the early stages of the controversy a firm su p p o rter of O rthodoxy, and
thodox church, while their opponents, and especially the infam ous m ain tain ed th ro u g h o u t his career the traditional B yzantine conviction of
Barlaam of C a la b ria (the teacher of P etrarch ), represent the A ristotelian P lato ’s superiority to A ristotle in m etaphysics. T h e original debate b e­
W est, or B yzantine “ L a tin o p h ro n s” (L atin sym pathizers) eager for ac­ tween B arlaam and Palam as was not a m atter of A ristotelianism versus
com m odation w ith the R o m an church. T h e querelle des philosophes in the P latonism , b u t rath er grew from a m ethodological dispute about the best
fifteenth century, in consequence, has been read as a m ask for an way to defend O rthodoxy against the attacks of W estern controver­
ideological struggle betw een C atholicism and O rthodoxy, with “ p a g a n ” sialists.68
hum anists treacherously aiding the O rth o d o x enem y in the hope of As it tu rn s out, the Plato-A ristotle controversy is indeed related to
destroying the au th o rity of the R o m an C h u rc h .64a T h is reading, how ­ H esychasm , b u t in a rath er different m an n er from w hat has usually been
ever, is difficult to sustain in view of recent research on B yzantine intel­ believed. It appears in fact that the later querelle des philosophes has its roots
lectual history. H esychasm , it has becom e clear, far from being a in the period of Byzantine history im m ediately following the trium ph of
N eoplatonic revival, was in fact a kind of m ystical pietism rooted in the the H esychast m ovem ent. For the m ovem ent did triu m p h , first in 1341
B yzantine m onastic trad itio n , hostile alike to the o rd in ary B yzantine w hen the anti-P alam ites B arlaam and A kindynos w ere condem ned, and
clergy, whom it regarded as corru p t and spiritually tepid, and to the definitively in 1347 w hen H esychasm was declared to be O rthodox doc­
“ H ellenists” o r students of the ancient G reek classics, w hom it feared as trine; B arlaam was added to the lists of those ritually anathem atized on
secret pagans and co rru p ters of y o u th .65 Even the great intellectual the Feast of O rthodoxy. T his victory seems to have generated a crisis of
cham pion of the H esychasts, G regory Palam as, professed to despise all feeling am ong educated and patriotic B yzantines. M an y , steeped in the
pagan philosophers, Plato in p a rtic u la r,66 and less distinguished traditions of G reek philosophy and O rthodox an tiq u ity , could not help
adherents of the m ovem ent were often frankly philistine. T hough b u t regard H esychasm as an innovation and a sign of intellectual
H esychast sp irituality, like all B yzantine (and W estern) m ysticism s, decadence. M oreover, in a period when the m ore realistic B yzantines felt
recalled the m etaphysical dynam ics of N eoplatonism , its direct sources that the only hope for the survival of their em pire as a political entity was
were D ionysius the A reopagite and oth er G reek F athers. N evertheless, in some kind of accom m odation with the L atin C h u rch , the Hesychasts
to anyone w ith good train in g in the Platonic and A ristotelian tradition, and their Palam itic cham pions tu rned a deaf ear to any appeals for
ecum enism . A large party am ong them (perhaps including Palam as
him self) even believed that O rthodoxy w ould have a better chance of su r­
b4a This view goes back to George Trebizond (see above, p. 171), but elements of it
may be found in more modern literature, especially W. Gass, Gennadios und Pletho. vival u n d er the dom ination of the tolerant T u rk s th an u n d er the m ore
Anstotelismus und Platonismus in der griechischen Kirche (Berlin, 1844); Th. Uspenskij, Le chauvinistic and intransigent L atin s.69 It is no w onder that a large
mouuement philosophique et theologique au X lV e siecle\ Tatakis (note 6 6 above), 267, 271, with
some reservations; Pastor (q.v.); and Woodhouse, pp. 81, 170.
65 The great modern authority on Hesychasm is John Meyendorff; see his A Study of 67 See the important articles of R. E. Sinkewicz, “ The Solutions Addressed to George
Gregory Palamas, tr. G. Lawrence (London, 1964); his most important articles on the sub­ Lapithos by Barlaam the Calabrian and Their Philosophical Context,’’ Mediaeval Studies
ject have been collected in Byzantine Hesychasm: Historical, Theological and Social Problems 43 (1981): 151-217; idem, “ The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God in the Early Writings
(London, 1974). of Barlaam the Calabrian,’’ ibid. 44 (1982): 181-242.
66 Despite an early acquaintance with some works in the Aristotelian corpus. See 68 See G. Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophte in Byzanz: Der Streit um die theologische
Meyendorff, A Study, chapter 1, for his attitude to the pagan philosophers. Palamas' few Methodik in der spaetbyzantinischen Geistesgeschichte, seine systematischen Grundlagen und seine
references to Plato seem to be based on indirect sources, and are far from complimentary. histonsche Entwicklung, Byzantinisches Archiv 15 (Munich, 1977).
In one place he attacks the Timaeus for its heretical doctrine of creation; in another place 69 See J. M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1986), p.
he repeats the old charge that Socrates’ daimonion was really an evil spirit. Both charges 268f. There was of course plenty of evidence for this view, as Orthodox Christians had
were repeated by George of Trebizond. lived unmolested in Turkish territories for centuries, while the Latin church in some
 196 P A R T III ROME 197

n u m b er o f conservative B yzantines felt a profound sense of alienation group was m ade up of Pletho and a few of his disciples, for w hom
from contem p o rary orthodoxy. Platonism was at once a preservative from the corru p tio n of orthodox
T h e com bination of intellectual distaste and political fear created or “ sophists” and in n o v ato rs,73 and a defense against the dialectical te r­
exacerbated by the H esychast m o v e m e n t seem s to have led to three m ain rorism of W estern scholastics. For it was P leth o ’s view th at G reece could
sorts of reaction am ong disaffected B yzantine intellectuals. O ne group not ultim ately survive if she sold her soul to the L atins, even should the
reacted by converting to L atin C h ristia n ity and em bracing scholastic W estern princes agree to defend h er for a tim e; for Pletho, the only hope
A ristotelianism ; this g roup included clerics such as the D om inicans for G reece lay in a political and spiritual renew al which retu rn ed to the
M anuel C alecas and the three b ro th ers C hrysoberges and the antique sources of H ellenic greatness; above all, to the philosophy of
C am ald u len sian D em etrios S karanos, as well as laym en such as the Plato.
E m peror J o h n V Paleologus, D em etriu s C ydones (the tran slato r of Pletho is the chief actor in the earlier stages of the Plato-A ristotle con­
A quinas), G eorge of T re b iz o n d an d J o h n A rg yropoulos.70 As “ the troversy. M oreover, his in terp retatio n of P lato and the Platonic tradition
heresies m en leave are h ated m o s t,’’ som e m em bers of this group was perhaps the most im p o rtan t influence shaping the view of Platonism
displayed a hostility to the ecum enical spirit of com prom ise alm ost equal held by Bessarion and Ficino and (therefore) by the L atin W est as a
to that of the Palam ites. A second g ro u p , however, tried to stand be­ whole. Yet the student of P leth o ’s religious thought is faced with in trac­
tween, or ra th e r above, the dogm atic differences separating O rthodox table difficulties of in terp retatio n . A m ark of these difficulties is the sharp
and R o m an C atholic; it included Bessarion and his circle and such L atin difference of opinion about P leth o ’s religious views w hich persists in the
bien pensants as N icolaus C u sa n u s and (seem ingly) Francesco Fiielfo.71 It m o dern scholarly literature. T h e m ajority of scholars, including P letho’s
was this g roup that, following the p ath blazed by B arlaam a century two m ost recent biographers, accept w ithout question the charge of
earlier, saw in the P roclan and D ionysian version of Platonism the paganism m ade against him by his enem y S cholarius;74 while at the same
possibility of co n stru ctin g a theology of c o n c o rd .72 T h e last and sm allest tim e a n u m b er of other scholars of high authority have continued to ex­
press skepticism as to w hether this accusation could in fact be tru e .75*In
places such as Cyprus had shown itself intolerant and eager to proselytize. Meyendorff,
.4 Study, p. 110, notes that the Latins regarded Palamism as a doctrine formed precisely
to block efforts at union. 73 It is usually said that Pletho’s disparaging remarks about clerical sophists are meant

70 See Hussey. The Orthodox Church , p. 265; J. Gill, “ The Sincerity of Bessarion the to refer to the Byzantine clergy or even to Christians in general, but the reference to “ in­
Unionist, ” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 26 (1975): 381; other prosopographical in­ novators” with which these criticisms are often linked (e.g. in his Laws 1.2 = Alexandre,
formation in G. T. Dennis, The Letters of Manuel II Paleologus, Dumbarton Oaks Texts 4 p. 36) suggests he may have had the Palamites particularly in mind. On the other hand,
(Washington, D C., 1977), pp. xxvii-lx. The adoption of Latin scholasticism was made there is a resemblance between Pletho’s polytheistic metaphysics and the “ divine
easier by the circumstance that Aristotle formed a regular part of the svllabus in Byzan­ energies” of the Palamites (which they called “ divinities” ); it is this resemblance George
tine schools. of Trebizond may have had in mind when he linked Pletho with Gregory Palamas (see
71 The evidence for Bessarion’s anti-Palamite sentiments is collected in the article of above, p. 171 and note 12).
J. Gill cited in the previous note, pp. 380-382; Gill oddly omits to mention the best piece 74 Several of the older authorities accept the accusation of paganism, including J.

of evidence, namely Bessarion’s own anti-Palamitic tract flpb? tou riaXapa xata too Boivin le Cadet, “ Querelle des philosophes du quinzieme siecle,” Memoires de Literature
Bexxou avxtppT)aeu; which he brought with him to the Council of Florence (Mohler tirez des registres de L ’Academic royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2 (1717): 775-791; C.
1:213-218). See also E. Candal, “ Andreae Rhodiensis, O .P ., inedita ad Bessarionem Alexandre, pp. ii-iii, li-liii. The majority of modern students of Pletho also accept the
cpistula,’’ Onentalia Christiana Periodica, 4 (1938): 329-371. Bessarion apparently thought story, including Mohler 1:349; B. Kieszkowski, Studi sulplatonismo del Rinascimento in Italia
the distinction between divine essence and divine energies did not accord with the Greek (Florence, 1936), pp. 13-36; Anastos (note 76, below); Garin in Studi sul platonismo
Fathers; see also Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1961), p. 225. medievale, pp. 153-219; N. B. Tomadakis, 2uUdf3iov BuCavxivwv pekEtcov xat xeipivwv, 2nd
72 Barlaam’s key role as a forerunner of Renaissance Platonism has only recently been edn. (1966), pp. 151-9; idem, “ Oriente e Occidente all’epoca del Bessarione,” Rivista
exposed through the publication by Sinkewicz (note 67, above) of Barlaam’s early Solu- di studi bizantini e neoellenici 15 [1968]: 29-40, reprinted in his Miscellanea Byzantina-
tiones. The application of the apophatic theology of Proclus and Dionysius to undermine Neohellenica ( Modena, 1972), pp. 81-92; Tambrun-Krasker (note 85, below); and Pletho’s
Trinitarian dogmatism was originally used by Barlaam in anti-Latin polemics, but later recent biographers Masai and Woodhouse (q.v,).
converted into an ecumenical move; see C. Giannelli, “ Un progetto di Barlaam per 75 Pletho’s paganism has been doubted by Leone Allaci, De Georgiis et eorum scnptis

l’unione delle Chiese,” in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati (Rome, 1946), 3: 154-208, esp. p. diatriba (Paris, 1651; reprinted in PG 161:746-766); W. Gass, Gennadius und Pletho:
187. See also his letters Contra Graecos, published in PG 151, e.g. at col. 1281: “ An ad Anstotelismus und Platomsmus, 2 vols. (Breslau, 1844), 1: 35f.; G. de Ruggiero, Rinascimento
Aristotelicas methodos et Platonicas divisiones et mathematicas demonstrationes, et Riforma e Controrforma, 3rd edn. (Bari, 1977), p. 103n; E. Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Re­
cogitationes humanas recurrere, et ex ill is quaesitorum veritatem perquirere? Sed neque naissance, rev. edn. (New York, 1968), pp. 244-248; P. O. Kristeller, in Renaissance Con­
hoc decrevit face re, sciens profecto hanc rem transcendere omnem humanam et mentem cepts of Man (New York, 1972), pp. 96-98; N. G. Wilson, Scholars oj Byzantium (London,
[meritem ed.\ et methodum et demonstrationem, ’’ 1983), pp. 270, 274; and C. H. Lohr in C H R P , p. 559.
 198 P A R T III ROME 199

favor of the hypothesis of pag an ism are the explicit and circum stantial literary form of the Laws was that of a Utopia, and argues that its religious
charges of G eorge S cholarius, as well as those of G eorge of T rebizond prescriptions should be taken no m ore seriously than the philosophical
which we have already seen. T h e re is also am biguous evidence that some religion in T hom as M o re ’s jeu d ’espnt,79 K risteller believes that the cult
of P leth o ’s students were d raw n to heretical and pagan beliefs; a certain of the gods described therein could be susceptible of allegorical in ter­
Ju v e n a l, supposed by Scholarius to be a disciple of P leth o ’s, was actually pretations, sim ilar to the ones given of the pagan gods by W estern
found guilty and drow ned, his ears an d ton g u e having been cut out. Such N eoplatonists whose orthodoxy cannot be doubted. T h ere is m oreover
a punishm ent rem inds us why we can n o t expect to find m uch clear the problem of inconsistency. Even Scholarius com m ended the ex­
evidence of P le th o ’s paganism . But despite the risks, Pletho did choose cellence of P leth o ’s m oral character, yet on the paganist hypothesis we
to com m it to w riting w hat cam e after his d eath to be considered the most m ust believe that Pletho was hypocrite enough to defend O rthodox doc­
dam n in g evidence of all, nam ely, his Summary of Zoroastrian and Platonic trine against the L atins, orally at the C ouncil of Florence and in w riting
Doctrine and the surviving fragm ents o f his Book of Laws. In these works in the late 1440s,80 all the while com posing in secret a book full of
the heretical doctrines of d eterm in ism , the absolute eternity of the in­ dangerous heresies. Finally, there are m ore general problem s of
telligible cosmos, creation th ro u g h secondary divinities, the preexistence historical context and m entality to consider. C harges of paganism and
ol the soul, and the existence of the p ag an gods are calm ly m aintained “ ath eism ” are exceedingly com m on the M iddle Ages and Renaissance
and defended. T h e Book of Laws, m oreover, contains rubrics for a revived and have a m eaning quite different from their m odern sense; sometimes
cult of the gods, including a calendar, a liturgy, and various hym ns and they are no m ore than topoi of the invective, to be com pared with the
prayers to the pagan d iv in ities.76 equally frequent (and usually unfounded) charges of incest and u n ­
T h e chief objection to the p aganist hypothesis is that nearly all the best n atu ral vice.81 In case after case accusations of atheism or paganism once
evidence is tain ted in one way o r a n o th e r. W e have already seen the taken by scholars at face value have tu rn ed out on further inspection to
reasons for G eorge of T re b iz o n d ’s h atred o f Pletho; the case of Scholarius be false or problem atic. L ucien Febvre has m ade us m ore deeply aware
is sim ilar. Scholarius was a vain an d inconsistent ch aracter who had of the differences betw een religious doubt in the sixteenth century and
originally su pported the U n io n , but ended by becom ing the first the lumen siccum of m odern ratio n alism .82*T o m ain tain , as his biographers
patriarch of the schism atic G reeks u n d e r T u rk ish rule. H e was also the
leading in terp reter of A ristotle in the G reek East and a devotee of 79 I find Wind’s hypothesis unconvincing for a variety of reasons, most of all because

G regory P a la m a s.77 P le th o ’s claim in his De differentiis Platonis et Aristotelis exact parallels to the heretical passages in the Laws may be found in other works ol Pletho
that could only have been seriously intended, for instance, the Summary o f Platonic and
that Plato was closer to C h ristia n ity th a n A ristotle he perversely took as Zoroastrian Doctrine and the Reply to the Treatise in Support of the Latin Doctrine mentioned
a personal attack on him self, and he seem s to have felt jealous and sham ­ below in note 90. If Pletho did intend the Laws as a Utopia, it was utterly unlike anything
ed by P leth o ’s greater learn in g and g reater steadfastness in opposition to else he ever wrote.
80 See Woodhouse, pp. 144-145, and below, p. 203. Woodhouse and Masai date the
U n io n .78 It is Scholarius who m ust be blam ed for destroying most of beginning of Pletho’s work on the Laws to the 1430s.
P leth o ’s Laws', w hat rem ains are excerpts copied by the future patriarch 81 On the conventions of ancient invective, copied by both Byzantine and Latin

for the express purpose of p roving P le th o ’s heresy. M ore than one humanists, see G. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton, 1972), p.
271. In an interesting article (“ Per la storia del termine Atheus nel Cinquecento: Fonti
scholar has suspected that the full text o f the Laws would p ut P leth o ’s e traduzioni greco-latine,” Studifilosofici 3 [1980]: 71-104) C. Bianca shows that the lex­
religious views in a very different light. E d g ar W ind suggests that the ical meaning of a9eo<; for Greeks and Latins was something like “ impious until the early
sixteenth century. This is doubtless how one should understand Scholarius accusation
of “ atheism” against Pletho at the end of the former’s Defense of Aristotle. Familiarity with
76 See M. V. Anastos, “ Pletho’s Calendar and Liturgy,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4 the conventions of the invective may also explain why so little attention seems to have
(1948): 183-305. In his Protectio Aristotelis Problematum of 1456, George Trebizond repeats been paid to the Scholarius’ charges by persons in a position to have heard of them such
a rumor he had heard of certain “ prayers to the Sun” composed by Pletho (Mohler as Filelfo, Bessarion and Ficino.
3:302-303; see also Moniasani, Trapezuntiana, p. 41 Iff.): “ Nec solem verentur, cui ferun- 82 Le probleme de Tincroyance au XV Ie si 'ecle, 2nd edn. (Paris, 1968). For other examples
tur quotidie, quasi deus sit et anima mundi, ut aiunt, preces fundere, quas eloquen- of Renaissance “ atheism” which turn out to be something less extreme, see P.O.
tissime Gemistus quidam, omnium hominum impiissimus composuit, qui librum etiam Kristeller, “ The Myth of Renaissance Atheism and the French Tradition of Free
adversus Christum Dominum nostrum reliquisse fertur. ” Thought,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 6 (1968): 233-243. The case for paganism
' 7 Oeuvres, 3:204-239. There also seems to have been an element of political rivalry be­ in the thought of John Italus (formerly thought to be a forerunner of Pletho) has been
tween Byzantium and Mistra, for which see Woodhouse, p. 269. rejected by recent scholarship; see L. Clucas, The Trial of John Italos and the Crisis of Intellec­
78 See Woodhouse, p. 240. tual Values in Byzantium in the Eleventh Century (Munich, 1981). For Pomponio Leto, see
 200 P A R T III ROME 201

do, that P leth o ’s religious views am o u n t to an explicit rejection of C h ris­ the sam e kind of th in g .84 It was P letho’s view — and there was m ore than
tianity is thus to run the risk of im p o rtin g a serious anachronism into the enough evidence to support it— that politicians and greedy clerics, in
Q uattro cen to . o rder to exploit the ig n orant, had debased and trivialized the religions of
F ortunately one need not m ain tain so radical an hypothesis in the case his tim e, and in so doing had eroded the m oral and spiritual vigor upon
of Pletho, so long as one u n d e rsta n d s precisely w hat P letho’s which the political pow er of the E astern em pire depended. T h e clergy,
“ p a g an ism ” m eans and how it is related to C h ristian ity . T h ere is in the for instance, by teaching the co rrupt and unphilosophical doctrine that
first place no question of Pletho h av in g inten d ed to revive the ancient im petrative prayers could alter the decrees of Fate, had engrossed for
pagan cults as they have been reco n stru cted by m odern scholarship. We them selves the w ealth of the superstitious. M oney and m anpow er which
do not hear of Pletho an d his followers sacrificing m ilk-w hite bullocks m ight have gone to the defense and ad o rn m en t of the em pire had thus
w ithin the citadel of M istra. Pletho indeed explicitly condem ns the been squandered on useless m o n asteries.85 W ith his own eyes Pletho had
religious beliefs and practices of the an cien t G reek city-states as poetical seen, at the C ouncil of Florence, the leaders of the B yzantine church and
and p opular corruptions o f tru e religion. H is polytheism is the state ab andon w hat should have been eternal theological truths for the
polytheism of late ancient N eoplatonism , and especially of Proclus, sake of some tem porary and, as it tu rn ed out, futile m ilitary aid. C o n ­
w herein the gods, arran g ed hierarchically from the high god Zeus, stand tem pt for the leaders of his own church, com bined with a sense of his own
for transcendental principles or causes o f substances and changes in the intellectual superiority, were no doubt largely responsible for alienating
phenom enal w orld. Zeus is thus a sign for the principle of being, Pletho from the institutional religion of his day.
Poseidon (identified also w ith the N eoplatonic Nous) is the principle of But above these corrupted religions, Pletho held, there soared a more
activity, Pluto of the h u m an soul and so forth. T h e pagan m yths and ancient and sublim e form of religion w hich had been know n to antique
biblical stories, insofar as they have not been co rru p ted by poets and “ legislators and philosophers” and m ight yet be know n to choice spirits
“ sophists” , are not historical events, b u t shadowy representations in in the m odern world through a diligent study of the greatest of ancient
linguistic form of m etaphysical (o r divine) tru th s, w hich m ay only be philosophers. T his ancient H ellenic theology had, at the beginning of
grasped truly in contem plative noesis. T h e m yth of O rp h eu s, the rape of history, been com m on to all m en, though some form ulations of it had ad ­
P roserp in a and the story of A dam an d Eve are thus at root the same m ittedly been im perfect. T h e best guide to it was the Persian sage
story; both of them contain h idden tru th s about the fixity of hum an Z oroaster, who had been followed by Pythagoras and P la to ,86*and who
destiny, tru th s w hich, though visible to hid d en powers of intuition w ithin had in tu rn inspired the best of the ancient legislators. T h e high ancient
the soul, are strictly beyond the ability o f language to co m m u n icate.83
Pletho, I suggest, is best seen as an ex trem e exam ple of that “ un iv er­ 84 The key passage is in Pletho’s Laws, 1.2, ed. Alexandre, p. 28; Xeyouai piv yap auxvot

salization of relig io n ” w hich we have already rem arked in connection tepi aiixcov Ttotrixal, aro^iatai, vop.o0exai, cpiXoaocpoi. ’AXXa xouxgjv ixonycal pev xai aocptaxai oux
7

aljioi xa>v xoiouxoxv i&Tfnxat xptvoix’ av 8 ixa(a>?' 7tou]xal pev xoXaxeia xe xa noXXa xpcopevoi
with early h u m an ism . T h e re are of course differences. P etrarch and Boc­ xai repo? yap tv xpoaopiXouvxe? av0pa»roi?, aXri0e(a? 8 e xai xou fkXxtaxou ou ixavu xi 9 povxi'Covxe?-
caccio had (following the F athers) seen P latonism as the esoteric religious aocptaxai Be aXr)0e(a? ... ou povov ooBev 9 povx((ovxe?, aXXa xai auyva xxe.pl xt)v avacpiatv auxf)?
wisdom of the educated ancien t m an , w hich was only one step below xeyva^ovxe?. "Apcpw yap xouxcu xu> yevT) xa pev xuv 0ewv rtpaypaxa xaOatpouvxe? et<; xo
av0 pamva>xepov, xa 8 ’ av0 pa>ixiva al'povxe? et? xo 0 eioxepov f| xaxa xo av0 pa«uvov pexpov, xavxa
C h ristian ity in the h ierarchy of religions; this concept of Platonism xe avco xaxco xivouvxe? ... flapa Be vopo0ex<iv xe xai 9 1 X0 0 6 9 0 ^ paXXov fptep xtvcov aXXcov
enabled them to distance the pag an poets from the charges of superstition av0 pa)7xwv 7tu0 o ix ’ av xi? xi uyie? xxe.pl xuiv ixotouxcov. 'Oi yap vopo0exai exti xai xoivtp aya0a>
and crude polytheism m ade against them by clerical opponents of the xou? vopou? av xi0eaxr)ai a?iouvxe? ... oi xe 9 1 X6 0 0 9 0 1 xrjv ev xol? ouaiv aXf)0eiav xe9 a/.atou
euBaipovia? 7toioupevoi, xai xauxr]v xpo leavxaxv av ypr]paxa>v 8 ia>xovxo? eixoxai? a>? paXiaxa,
hum anities. P letho, on the o th er h a n d , saw the crude polytheism of the eixeep xive? aXXot av0 pco7xtov xai xuyyavoiev av auxfj?. The “ poets” here (in the Platonic
ancients an d the superstitions of m o d ern C h ristian ity as fundam entally fashion) represent popular religion, while “ sophist” is Pletho’s private word to describe
Byzantine clerics.
85 See his political addresses to Emperor Manuel Paleologus and to Theodore, Despot
below, note 211. On the other hand, a strong case has recently been made for Pomponaz- of the Peloponnesus, discussed in Masai, pp. 67-83. 86-96 and Woodhouse pp. 92-98,
zi’s rejection of Christianity by M. Pine, Pietro Pomponazzi: Radical Philosopher of the Renais­ 102-108; see now also B. Tambrun-Krasker, Plethon, Traite de vertus, Edition critique, intro­
sance (Padua, 1986) and serious questions remain about Filippo Buonaccorsi duction, traduction et commentaire, Philosophi Byzantini, 3 (Leiden, 1988), Introduction.
(Callimachus Fxperiens). 86 See Laws, III.43, ed. Alexander, pp. 256-258. The doctrine that Pythagoras had
83 For all these details, see Masai, pp. 208-225; Pletho's assimilation of Orpheus to been a student of Zoroaster is an ancient tradition; see Anastos (note 76 above), p. 28111.,
the Adam and Eve story is probably based on Rep. 620A. where the evidence is collected.
202 P A R T III ROME 203

religion was at once the source and the m easure of all subsequent Such an hypothesis would at least explain P leth o ’s firm interventions
religious traditions. It m ay indeed be th at P letho th o ught a revival of this at the C ouncil of Florence on behalf of O rthodoxy and his continued p a r­
ancien t theology was im m inent. W e know he believed in the Stoic doc­ ticipation in C h ristian theological debates into the later 1440s.89 Pletho
trines of fate and eternal recurrence, an d we know he thought both m ay have regarded the religions of his day as co rru p t, b u t that did not
eastern and w estern C h ristian ity w ere doom ed to be conquered by the m ean they w ere all corrupt equally. A nd he did not believe that religious
T u rk s. T h is, in fact, m ay be w hat is at the bottom of T re b iz o n d ’s report, u n ity could or should be achieved by a factitious com prom ise between
already qu o ted , that Pletho prophesied the em ergence of one world debased theological dogm as. From the elevated v antage of Platonic
religion “ not different from p a g a n ism ” . If the religions of the w orld, m etaphysics he could see clearly where praise and blam e was to be ap p o r­
divided by self-seeking clergy and external threats, w ere all brought tioned. O f all religions, that of the O rthodox church was closest to the
u n d e r one ru ler, m ight it not be possible th at religion m ight at last be tru e H ellenic theology; hence, he could in good conscience defend it from
purified? those who would adulterate it by attem pting to mix in the errors of the
If this is w hat Pletho thought, the golden age of tru e religion lay still L atins. It was only right to defend such tru th as there was in contem ­
in the future; b u t it cannot be assum ed from this that he had com pletely p orary religion, at least until such tim e as Fate a n d .th e revolving ages
rejected the C h ristian religion. T h o u g h Pletho surely rejected dogm atic b ro u g h t back the true, ancient doctrine of divinity. T h a t at least is what
and institutional C h ristian ity , it is unlikely that he felt the C hristian we m ust suppose Pletho was doing in his curious Reply to the Treatise in
gospel was u tterly lacking in religious w isdom . Pletho m ain tain ed in his Support of Latin Doctrine of 1448, in which he attacked L atin errors, not
Laws that all oth er religions, including H in d u ism an d the ancient Egyp­ from the point of view of O rthodoxy, with arg um ents draw n from the
tian religion, contained in their essence som e tru th ; it w ould be su rpris­ F athers, b ut entirely on m etaphysical grounds, with an axiom “ inimical
ing if he felt differently about C h ristian ity . Like som e of his pagan to the C h u rch but welcomed by the Hellenic theology” .90*T h e hypothesis
N eoplatonic sources he m ay have regard ed C h rist him self as a 0eto<; avrip, that Pletho still thought of him self as in some sense a C h ristian would also
a m an with divinely-given pow ers of insight into the w orkings of the explain T heodore G a z a ’s rath er different view of him . G aza was in a
universe, a theurgical healer and m iracle-w o rker.87 W ith the help of position to know P leth o ’s views but did not bear the sam e personal
reason and Proclan herm eneutics one m ight p en etrate b eneath the lies of anim osity tow ards him as Scholarius or T reb izo n d ; and G aza, in a letter
the “ sophists” to the essential m etaphysical and m oral tru th s of the to B essarion, chose to accuse him of heresy and contentiousness rather
gospel, ju st as he had tried to com bine the best elem ents in pagan and
O rth o d o x rites in his N eoplatonic litu rg y .88 F rom the point of view of o r­ 89 His intervention at the Council is attested by Sylvester Svropoulos, Les Memoires,
thodox C h ristian ity , the charges o f heresy an d p aganism against P leth o ’s VII, 17-18, ed. V. Laurent, Concilium Florentinum, Documenta et Scnptores, ser. B (Rome,
religion are no dou b t am ply justified. But it is quite possible that Pletho 1971), 9: 366-368. Pletho is reported as defending the orthodox doctrine which “ we hold
...in the first place from our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and secondly from the Apostle;
him self did not see the m a tte r this way; it is indeed likely th at he thought and these are the foundations of our faith on which all our teachers base themselves..”
him self a b etter C h ristian , in the true sense, than the ig n o ran t and tim e­ I find unconvincing the explanations of Masai and Woodhouse, who argue that Pletho
serving clergy aro u n d him who had tw isted the in n er m eaning of the took part in these theological debates either out of cynical political motives or from a
desire to allay suspicions of the authorities about his new cult. Pletho was no doubt very
gospel for their own econom ic and political ends. careful about revealing his esoteric beliefs to outsiders, but there is no reason to suppose
his defenses of orthodoxy were hypocritical. It is noteworthy that Pletho retained the trust
87 L. Bieler, 0eio<; avrip. Das Bild des “goettlichen Menschen” tn Spaetantike und Fruehchnsten- and admiration of unswervingly orthodox Christians such as the Patriarch Joseph, Mark
tum, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1935-36). In connection with Pletho’s latitudinarian view of Islam, Eugenicus and Cardinal Bessarion, and that both Bessarion and Isidore of Kiev were sent
Aubrey Diller (Scriptorium 10 [1956]: 37) has noted an interesting correction in Pletho’s by their superiors to study with Pletho, even though both of them had embarked upon
MS of Cedrenus’ History of the Arab Conquests: where Cedrenus had called Mohammed a clerical careers. For an example of a passage where Pletho distinguishes his own orthodox
cJjeuSojtpoqjfitTii;, Pletho emended to vop.o0ETT)<;—for him a term of high praise as one may view from that of “ Plato and the Platonists” , see below, note 98.
see from his Laws (see note 84). 90 Alexandre, p. 300: xai evteoO ev rcpoaXapPavovTE!; xai ti a^iojua, tf] pEv 'EXXr|vtxfi
88 Anastos (note 76 above), passim. Wind, Pagan Mysteries, pp. 246-247, note 20, 0£oXoyia xai paXa cpiXiov, irrj 8 e ’ExxXrjaia TtoXEpiarcaTov, 6q a>v piv ai SuvapEii; 8 ia<popoi, xai
writes, “ The logic of his system would seem to imply that all religions would agree in aura av sit) tar? oiiaiau; Staipopa, xtX. The “ Hellenic theology” is further described on p.
fundamental beliefs ... if they were traced back sufficiently far, before they were 302 as holding Eva 0eov xov avoixaxos xolq ovxoiq. The idea which Pletho is reviving of a
adulterated by scholiasts. Although perfectly in tune with the mood of the 1430s, such “ Hellenic theology” goes back at least to Porphyry, as we learn from a report ot his Phi­
a return to antiquity in religion comes close to the Protestant position, particularly in its losophy from the Oracles in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica 4.5.1-2; see H. Lewy, Chaldaean
disdain of the intervening scholiast.’’ Oracles and Theurgy (Cairo, 1956).
 204 P A R T III ROME 205

than p ag an ism .91 P le th o ’s heresy, how ever, was subtle and u nusual, so the em ergence of som e hum anistic rival to the C h ristian religion. H ostili­
we m ust not be surprised that it seem ed to dogm atists like Scholarius to ty to institutional C h ristian ity is not the sam e as hostility to C hristianity
be tan tam o u n t to a com plete rejection of C h ristian ity . Yet even as such. T h e real contention in R enaissance Italy was not betw een
Scholarius, hostile as he was to P letho, in a private letter could adm it that paganism and C h ristian ity , but rath er betw een com peting definitions of
Pletho had never openly attacked the faith, and express his puzzlem ent w hat C hristian ity was and w hat it m eant to be a C h ristian . T h e use of
over exactly how Pletho stood w ith respect to C h ristia n ity .92 Platonism as a non-clerical au th o rity to reform religion, by a laym an
Pletho then m ay not have rejected w hat he took to be the essence of such as Pletho, was thus a m ove of considerable im portance in the history
C hristian ity , but there can be no d o u b t th at he rejected the doctrinal of R enaissance and R eform ation thought. P leth o ’s b ran d of spiritualistic
authority of the ecclesiastical polity of his day. His true position would religion was, to be sure, far too radical and dangerous for the C hristian
seem to be analogous to those syncretistic ancient pagans or early m odern Platonists of the later fifteenth century. But (as we shall see in o u r final
Deists who were willing to accept the ' ‘wisdom of C h ristia n ity ” so long chapter) the possibility of using Platonism to renew a corrupted religious
as they were n eith er obliged to give up o th er forms of religious w isdom , trad itio n — of reform ing religion by retu rn in g , not upon the beginnings
nor subjected to the m oral an d doctrinal ty ran ny of the clergy. T h is is of C hristian ity , b u t upon the very sources of religion itself— would
indeed the real significance of P leth o 's H ellenic theology in o u r story. becom e a central them e of F lorentine N eoplatonism .
T h ere has been a w elcom e tendency in recent scholarship to recognize
* * *
the h u m a n ists’ co n trib u tio n to religious thought and to dism iss charges
of paganism and atheism m ade against them by hostile contem poraries T h e Plato-A ristotle controversy began in Florence d u rin g the C ouncil of
and repeated uncritically by later scholars. Yet one m ust be careful not U nion in 1439. Pletho, confined to his house by an illness, occupied
to fall into the opposite exag g eratio n , that of supposing all h u m anists to him self by com posing in G reek ‘‘for the sake of those interested in P lato”
be enthusiastic suppo rters o f the ecclesiastical hierarchy and of the o r­ a sum m ary of some lectures on philosophy he had been giving in
thodoxies endorsed by clerical au th o rity . T h e re can be in fact little doubt Florence.93 T h e su m m ary , called in L atin the De differentns Platoms et
that a great m any h u m an ists, including m any of those who regarded Aristotelis,94 had for its subject the relative m erits of Plato and Aristotle
them selves as sincere C h ristian s, w ere at the sam e tim e fiercely a n ­ as philosophers. T h o u g h it was a subject w hich had been debated
tiau th o ritarian and hostile to a ttem p ts by church au th o rities to regulate repeatedly Li G reek an tiq u ity from the tim e of the early A cadem y, most
their scholarship in accordance w ith n arro w -m in d ed definitions of of the argum ents w ould have been new to L atin readers, who hitherto
religious utility. It was p erh ap s inevitable th at the social tensions at court could have caught only some faint echoes of the controversy in Cicero,
betw een scholastic ju rists and h u m an ist chancery officials, an d in u rb an Boethius, A ugustine, C alcidius and of course in A ristotle him self.95
com m unities betw een m en d ican t preachers and h u m an ist educators, Pletho, siding w ith the m ajority of ancient and B yzantine interpreters,
should issue in w hat m ust be called ideological divisions. But it w ould be m aintained that Plato was su perior to A ristotle as a m etaphysician, while
a m istake to suppose that these ideological rivalries w ere expressed by allowing to the w orks of A ristotle a certain usefulness on the subject of
natu ral science. But Pletho took his criticism s of A ristotle well beyond his
■
” See Gaza's epistolatorv treatise to Bessarion against George’s Comparatio, written in sources by charging him w ith e rro r and contradiction on a nu m b er of
1459, excerpts from which are published in L. Labowskv, “ An Unknown Treatise by questions reg ard in g logic and natu ral science, areas w here the tradition
Theodore Gaza," Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 4 (1969): 173-205, at p. 196: nXr|0am had been inclined to g ran t A ristotle preem inent au th o rity . H e expresses
8 ’cl><; £Otx£ auvepr] xauxov 6 7toXXoti; xuiv aXXcov av0 pco7tcov, ot 8 r] xat xa xuyovxa xwv qmvofxevaiv
aapevot apTtaCovxec;, atpeaetp xa0iaxapevoi aoiatv ap^iaprixoGatv aXXr|Xoi<; xat StaxsXouat contem pt for A risto tle’s doctrine that virtue is a m ean disposition of the
uaxopevot tva p.r|7toxE xevfjp a7taXXayd>vxat ^iXoveixtap. toxBoi, and indeed for A risto tle’s whole approach to ethics, which (he
See his letter to Mark Eugenicus in Oeuvres 4:1 17, quoted by Woodhouse, p. 267: thought) reduced a divine science to a m ere technique for m axim izing
“ Some say that he is pious in his views about the deity, and deny that he is either
teaching or composing any kind ot a new system of laws, in which our faith is torn to
shreds, but that we are promoting this story about him. and that time will prove us great- 93 See Pletho’s Reply to Scholarius in PG 160:1017.
iv mistaken. ” He then goes on to praise Pletho's moral character. In his Reply to Scholanos 94 The title in Greek is FLoi d»v ’ApioxoxeXris 7tpo<; FlXaxcova Stacpepexat. I shall be quoting
(I'd 160: 983A-B, 987A, Pletho. again, seems to be defending the Ghurch against from the text of Lagarde (q.v). For the textual tradition of this work in the Quattrocento,
Scholarius’ “ insulting" imputation that its doctrine was closer to Aristotle's than to see App. 12.
Plato s —an attitude difficult to reconcile with a purely “ pagan" position. 95 See F. Purnell, Jr., “Jacopo Mazzoni" (note 62, above).
206 P A R T III ROME 107

intellectual and corporeal pleasures. M ost im p o rtan t of all, he argued But Pletho would not have pleased m uch b etter those hum anists such
forcefully that A risto tle’s cosm ology was utterly irreconcilable with as B runi, M an etti and Filelfo who had claim ed upon the authority of
C h ristian doctrine. A risto tle’s god was not a transcendent creator god, A ugustine that Plato was closer th an A ristotle to C hristian truth. O ne of
but m erely a first cause, insufficiently distinct as regards his essence from the criticism s Pletho m ade of A ristotle was that the la tte r’s treatm ent of
the other separated substances o f the su p ra lu n a r cosmos. “ Even the A rab determ inism was inconsistent and led to im piety because it allowed a role
A vicen n a,” Pletho rem arks, “ saw the ab su rd ity of this re a so n in g .” A nd to chance and h u m an freedom , thus dim inishing the role of divine p ro ­
not content w ith reducing his god to the level of created things, A ristotle vidence. T h o u g h P leth o ’s determ inism (expounded also in his treatise De
furtherm ore tried to separate su b lu n a r from su p ralu n ar causality, thus fato) has its source in Stoicism , the De differentiis im plies that this was
denying or lim iting the pow er of divine causation, and tending to P la to ’s doctrine as well. H ence it is im plied that Plato denied hu m an
m aterialism and ath e ism .96 freedom . Elsew here, Pletho states unam biguously that Plato held to the
M any of these criticism s of A ristotle h ad been voiced already in the doctrine of know ledge as recollection and therefore also held to the preex­
thirteenth century by scholastic philosophers an d theologians, b ut to hear istence of the soul. Finally, Pletho disallows the convenient C hristian in ­
them thus en u n ciated w ith calm au th o rity , by som eone obviously far terp retatio n of the Platonic Ideas, w hereby they becom e ideas in the
m ore know ledgeable than anyone in the W est of the full range of ancient m ind of G o d ,98 in favor of the Plotinian and Proclan interpretation of
philosophical literatu re, m u st have been an u nsettling experience. For them as occupying a separate and ontologically inferior hypostasis eter­
scholastic philosophers, certain of P le th o ’s claims w ould resonate nally caused by a superessential O ne. All these conflicts with C hristianity
strangely w ith questions yet being hotly debated in the universities. T he w ould later exercise the herm eneutical talents of M arsilio Ficino.
D om inican o rd e r (strongly rep resen ted at the C ouncil) was still com m it­ It has been argued by M asai, G arin and others that P leth o ’s presence
ted m ore or less officially to the reconciliation of C h ristianity and A risto­ in Florence was of sem inal im portance for the genesis of R enaissance
tle prom oted by its great th irteen th -cen tu ry theologians, A lbert the G reat N eoplatonism in the later Q u attro cen to . But in light of w hat has been
and T hom as A quinas. O th e r scholastic theologians had rejected the said it is h ard to see how the point of view expressed in P leth o ’s lectures
Thom istic project already in the th irteen th century as savoring of could have been received w ith enthusiasm by any of his W estern auditors
naturalism , an d had g rav itated instead tow ards neo-A ugustinian or at the tim e of the C ouncil of Florence. P leth o ’s contem pt for A rabic in ­
m odernist theologies in w hich the om nipotence and transcendence of terpreters ch A ristotle and his low regard for A ristotle him self w ould not
G od were felt to be b etter preserved. A third group consisted of have pleased “ A verroists” , while his refusal to assim ilate the G reek
philosophers w orking in the A rts faculties o f universities, m isleadingly philosophers to C hristian ity would have distressed theologians of the
called “ A verroists” , who w ere increasingly claim ing the right to ex­ D om inican school and h u m anists alike. M a sa i’s belief, that there was a
pound the philosophy of A ristotle in despite of any contradictions which horde of pagan hum anists in the W est eager to d rink from P letho’s cup,
m ight subsist betw een it and the C h ristia n religion. A scholastic au d ito r has long been exploded. T o argue thus a prion for the slightness of
of Pletho w ould thus probably have reg ard ed his lectures as an attack on P leth o ’s influence is perilous, b ut the surviving textual evidence tends to
D om inican theology and at the sam e tim e as a reproof directed against confirm the su p p o sitio n .99 Aside from F icino’s fam ous rem ark that
“ A verroists” 97 and oth er scholastic philosophers who took A ristotle as P leth o ’s lectures inspired C osim o d e ’ M edici to found the Florentine
the superem inent au th o rity in philosophy. A cadem y, a rem ark which I have elsewhere argued m ust be understood

96 “ Atheism” in this passage dearly means the denial of divine causality in the particular error?” (tr. Woodhouse). Pletho later argues that Aristotle is to be blamed for
sublunar world, which Pletho thought would lead to forgetfulness of the deities and other not having applied the lesson of human immortality to the moral sphere.
impious behavior. See note 81, above. For Pletho’s possible reasons for attacking Aristo­ 98 The doctrine goes back at least to Albinus ( Dtdaskalos , ed. P. Louis, IX. 1, 3), but

tle, see below, p. 2 2 1 . was welcomed by the Christian Platonists of antiquity; see A. H. Armstrong, “ The
97 The more so as Pletho also denied the central thesis of the Averroist interpretation Background of the Doctrine That the Intelligibles are Not Outside the Intellect,” in En-
of Aristotle, that Aristotle did not believe in personal immortality for individual human tretiens sur I ’antiquite ciassique, no. 5 (Geneva, 1960), pp. 391-425. Pletho twice says that
souls. “ However seriously Averroes may be taken in other respects, I should nevertheless he himself is “ not following Plato” (ed. Lagarde, p. 334: ou nXdrrcovi auveutEtv ouSev
hesitate to accept readily the view of a man so misguided as to suppose that the soul is nXdiram cruveipTixoTEi;) on the Ideas, but this does not alter the tact that he presents Plato
mortal; and how could anyone capable of such nonsense be regarded as a competent and the Platonists as having held that the Ideas were extradeical.
judge of any serious matter, when even Aristotle himself is evidently not guilty ot this 99 See App. 12.
 208 PART III ROME 209

in a m etaphorical sen se,100 there is practically no sign of any influence p retatio n in the De differentiis of A risto tle’s views on n a tu re .105 G a z a ’s
of P letho’s lectures or of o th er G reek texts from the Plato-A ristotle con­ w ritings set off an im m ediate reaction in the Bessarion circle. M ichael
troversy upon Latin readers for alm ost tw enty years after the C ouncil of A postolis replied hotly in defense of Plato and P leth o ;106 he was then a t­
Florence. Such influence as these texts h ad cam e long after the C ouncil tacked in his tu rn by G a z a ’s cousin, A ndronicus C a llistu s.107108Bessarion,
of U nion and was for the m ost p a rt m ed iated by the h u m anists of the m ore gently, responded to G a z a ’s lost treatise on A ristotle’s view of
Bessarion circle in R om e. T h a t B essarion was able in large m easure to n atu re w ith a libellus of his ow n, Quod natura consulto agat.l0& Finally, in
regulate W estern exposure to Pletho an d the B yzantine debate is indeed 1462, Bessarion tried to com pose the differences betw een Apostolis,
one of the keys to u n d e rsta n d in g the reception of P lato in the second half G aza, and C allistus in a letter praising both Plato and A ristotle.109 H e
of the fifteenth century. failed. A postolis, at least, could not resist w riting a reply to the em igre
professor D em etrius C halcondyles, who had w ritten a fu rth er defense of
* * *
G aza and A ristotle som etim e in the 1460s.1101
T he first responses to P leth o ’s De differentiis, then, com e not from Italy By this tim e, how ever, the controversy had been transform ed into
but from the G reek East. In late 1443 o r early 1444 Scholarius, who had som ething m ore than a learned squabble am ong em igre scholars. For in
obtained with som e difficulty a copy of P le th o ’s w ork, w rote a defense 1458 G eorge of T reb izo n d exposed the debate to L atin readers for the
of A ristotle in which he was chiefly concerned to show that A ristotle had First tim e in his inflam m atory Comparatio Platonis et Anstotehs, painting a
in fact believed in a tran scen d en t c reato r god. Pletho replied only in 1449 lurid p o rtrait of an ig n o ran t, an tichristian, im m oral and dangerous
or 1450; he died in 1452, only a year before the fall of C onstantinople. Plato. In the opening chapter G eorge tried to explain the irrational a t­
T h e controversy, how ever, did not die w ith Pletho. It was revived first traction of P latonism by arg u in g that the early environm ent and training
of all in C o n stan tin o p le by M atth ew C am ario tes, a follower of of certain persons predisposed them to cling to words rath er than res; it
Scholarius, who in 1455 w rote a treatise attacking P leth o ’s d e te r­ was perfectly n atu ral, for exam ple, that persons brought up in the
m in ism .101 N ext it eru p ted in the W est am o n g B yzantine em igres in the schism atic G reek East should close their ears to the tru th and be seduced
' ‘A cadem y” or inform al stu d y -g ro u p associated w ith C ard in al by P la to ’s lenocinium verborum. 111 T his obvious attack on the Bessarion cir­
Bessarion. Bessarion him self, in his usual pacific way, had tried rath er cle caused its m em bers to draw together against the com m on enem y.
lamely to distance him self from Pletho and conciliate Plato and A ristotle
on the question of first su b sta n c e .102 But T h eo d o re G aza, the leading 105 The work is referred to in Bessarion’s later treatise on the same subject, De natura
hum anist of B essarion’s circle an d an a rd e n t A ristotelian, w ould not let et arte, printed in Mohler, 3:92.
106 Mohler, 3:159-169. On Apostolis, see D. J. Geanakoplos, Greek Scholars in Venice:
the m atter lie. Asked his ow n views on first substance, he replied with
Studies in the Dissemination o f Greek Learning from Byzantium to Western Europe (Cambridge,
a treatise defending A ristotle and attack in g Pletho and P la to .103 A bout Mass., 1962), pp. 73-110 and E. Legrand, Bibliographie hellenique (Paris, 1885), pp.
the same tim e (1455-1458) he w rote an attack on P le th o ’s determ inistic LVIII-LXX. Apostolis had been a student of Argyropoulos and was a leader ot the pro-
treatise D efato104 and a fu rth er w ork, now lost, criticising P leth o ’s inter- Latin party in Constantinople. He made Bessarion’s acquaintance in Bologna in 1454
after escaping from Turkish captivity. He was not actually part of the Bessarion circle
in Rome, but the ill-success of his teaching activities in Candia made him constantly
dependent on Bessarion for financial support.
100 See mv article “ Cosimo de’Medici and the ‘Platonic Academy’ ” , forthcoming in 107 Mohler, 3:170-203.

J W C I. 108 Ibid., 3:88-90.

101 Pletho’s deterministic views had been expressed in a treatise De fato, which cir­ 109 Ibid., 3:511-513; his attitude summarized on p. 512: epi 8 e ... qnXouvxa p£v ia9i

culated separately before being incorporated into the Laws. See Woodhouse, p. 318, and nXaxcava, cpiXoGvxa 8 ’ ’ApiaxoxcXr), xai ax; aocpaixaxco ae(3op£vov £xax£pa>, nXr|9a>va x£ xfj^
App. 12. Throughout this paragraph and the next I follow the chronology established by peyaXovota? xai eu<pi>la<; ayapevov, xfj<; xoaaiixr)? xpop ’AptaxoxeXr) pax*)? xe xai Suavota? prj t-
Monfasani in George of Trebizond, pp. 201-229. roaiv£tv. (“ Know then that I love Plato and Aristotle both, and venerate them both as the
102 Bessarioms Nicaem Adversus Plethonem de substantia (Mohler 3:148-150), a fragment wisest of men, and Pletho I admire for his talents and great understanding, but I can’t
(‘‘loses Blatt, keine Abhandlung” ) written sometime after 1455. approve this great hostility and ill-will of his towards Aristotle.” )
101 Mohler 3:151-158. On Gaza see D. J. Geanakoplos, ‘‘Theodore Gaza, A Byzan­ 110 Chalcondyles’ defense is lost, but Apostolis’ survives and has been published by G.

tine Scholar of the Palaeologan ‘Renaissance’ in the Italian Renaissance,” Medievaha et K. Hyperides, Mtxar|Xou ’A7to<jx6 Xr) ttovTipaxta xpia £x8 6 vxop (Smyrna, 1876), a text I have
Humanistica, n.s., 12 (1984): 61-81, with references to the earlier literature. not been able to consult.
104 Mohler 3:237-246; this work was later revised in the 1460s according to Monfasani. 111 That George’s diatribe is directed against the Bessarion circle is further confirmed
George of Trebizond. p. 211. by Comparatio 11.16.
210 P A R T III ROME 211

G aza, though him self an A ristotelian, had been for som e tim e a b itter against him . Som e apparently treasonous letters G eorge had w ritten to
rival of T rebizond, and com posed im m ediately, in G reek, an attack on M ehm ed fell into the hands of B essarion, who used them to start a pro­
the Comparatio.112 Bessarion him self in the sam e year (1459) w rote, also cess against his enem y. At about the same tim e Bessarion (if we m ay trust
in G reek, the first draft of the w ork w hich was to becom e the In calum- G eo rg e’s own account) also tried to block the prom otion of his son A n ­
niatorem Platonis. H e continued to w ork on this vast com pilation for ten dreas to the post of apostolic secretary. In O ctober G eorge was com m it­
years with the help of G aza, Niccolo P ero tti, and other m em bers of his ted to the dungeon of the C astel S a n t’Angelo over the protests of Paul
circle. II where he rem ained until F eb ru ary of the following year. In the m ean­
T h a t G aza and Bessarion h ad both w ritten in G reek was perhaps a sign tim e, a fam iliar of Bessarion nam ed F ernando of C o rd o b a published a
of their wish to confine the controversy to the G reek com m unity in exile, treatise against T reb izo n d in which were collected praises of Plato from
and certainly d u rin g the early 1460s G eorge was in no position to various C h ristian and pagan authorities. F ern an d o did not go
threaten Bessarion seriously. B ut in 1464 the situation dram atically unansw ered, however. Som etim e after the pope had had G eorge released
reversed itself. T h e V enetian P ietro B arbo, who had once been G eo rg e’s from prison, he bade G eo rg e’s old friend, the A u g u stin ian bishop N ic­
student, was elevated to the papal th ro n e as Paul II. G eorge retu rn ed to colo Palm ieri, to investigate F e rn a n d o ’s w ork for heresy. T h e preface to
favor, and Bessarion, who had foolishly tried to hold Barbo to the condi­ P alm ieri’s report is an im p o rtan t docum ent as show ing the seriousness
tions of his election, suffered a loss o f influence, and w ithdrew tem p o rari­ with which Paul II regarded the charges of heresy against the Platonists
ly into literary re tire m e n t.113 G eorge lost no tim e in using his new in B essarion’s circle.116
position to pursue his prophetic v en d etta against B essarion. A copy of Now the political w eather began to tu rn against Bessarion. For in 1468
B essarion’s treatise De Sacramento euchanstiae cam e into his hands du rin g the conspiracy of the R o m an A cadem y burst out, th reaten in g to engulf
the suspicious illness of Niccolo P alm ieri, bishop of O rte, to which Bessarion and his circle as w ell.117*T h e floodw aters of the conspiracy had
G eorge, “ with trem bling h an d and a ringing, dizzy h e a d ’’ com posed a evidently been collecting since the early days of Paul I I ’s pontificate,
violent reply denouncing the w ork as h e re tic a l.114 In the late sum m er of w hen the pontiff reorganized the College of A bbreviators in the chancery
1465 G eorge, helped by a papal subsidy, set off for C onstantinople with in such fashion as to displace large num bers of h u m an ist functionaries.
the object of converting the G re a t T u rk , M ehm ed II, to C h ristianity and O n e of these hum anists, B artolom eo Platina, was so enraged that he
enlisting his aid against the P latonic m e n a c e .115 M ehm ed did not how ­ com posed an absurd and self-im portant letter in w hich he threatened the
ever respond to these exhalations of the H oly Spirit, and in J u n e of 1466 Pope w ith a council unless he restored the abbreviators to their places.
G eorge was obliged to re tu rn to R om e. H ere fortune began to turn Like other popes of the later Q u attro cen to , Paul regarded the prom otion
of a council as tan tam o u n t to treason and revolution, and so im prisoned
112 Labowsky, “ An Unknown Treatise,’’ (note 91 above). P latin a in the C astel S a n t’Angelo for four m onths until C ardinal G on-
113 See Pastor, 2:295. Paul II at one point even threatened to excommunicate
Bessarion for his opposition (Mohler, 1: 319). On Pietro Barbo, see the bibliographical zaga procured his release. P latina, far from being m ollified by this, jo in ­
guide in King, pp. 331-332. ed him self to some other discontented hum anists who had been m eeting
114 The reply has not survived, but its existence and the general circumstances are at­
in the house of P om ponio Leto, a well-known R o m an educator. It is dif­
tested to in a letter George wrote to Bessarion in August of 14-69; see Monfasani,
Trapezuntiana, p. 169: “ Hortano [i.e. Nicolao Ortano] episcopo repente rapto suspicione ficult to say precisely w hat activities this group engaged in— m any of
veneni fuit domum meam allatum opus sine titulo nescio a quo (non enim aderam) de them ap p ear to have been c ard in als’ secretaries— and w ith w hat degree
corpore Christi. Amisi animum legens, inconstantiam et levitatem, ne perfidiam dicam,
considerans eius qui scripsit et edidit. Nam cum questionem solveret utrum domini ver­
bis an sacerdotis precibus domini corpus efficiatur, multis leviter hinc inde dictis, tandem 116 See Text 62.
utrumque acceptare plane videtur. Itaque pre indignatione, accepto calamo, veritatem 117 For accounts of the conspiracy I rely especially upon Pastor, 4:36-64; V. Zabughin,
fidei confessus sum in eodem pene die. Non enim tanto, ut nunc, aut manus tremore aut Giulio Pomponio Leto, Saggio cntico , 2 vols. (Rome, 1909-1910); J. Delz, “ Ein unbekannter
caput tinnitu et vertigine agitabatur. Non multo post tuum hac de re opus datur cum Brief von Pomponius Laetus,” I M U 9 (1966): 417-440; F. R. Hausmann in B H R 32
titulo. Miratus fui de omnibus . . . ’’ I find incredible George’s claim that he did not at (1970): 607-611; A. J. Dunston, “ Paul II and the Humanists,’'Journal of Religious History
first realise the identity of the author of a work which bears the unmistakable stamp of 1 A (1973): 287-306; R. J. Palermino, “ The Roman Academy, the Catacombs and the
Bessarion’s thought. We may also discount George’s claim that he did not publish his Conspiracy of 1468,’’ Archiuum histonae pontificiae 18 (1980): 117-155; J. F. D ’Amico, Re­
tract out of reverence for Bessarion; fear is a more likely motive. naissance Humanism in Papal Rome: Humanists and Churchmen on the Eve of the Reformation
1 ,5 Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 185f.; I draw the other details in this paragraph (Baltimore, MD, 1983), pp. 92-97. See the latter two works for further bibliography; also
from Chapters 6 and 7 of the same. the article of D. Caccamo on Filippo Buonaccorsi in D B I 15: 78-83.

-
 212 PART i n ROME 213

degree of seriousness, but there is good evidence that they w rote salacious B essarion’s Platonism , connections which hostile parties such as T reb i-
hom osexual poetry, longed (like C ola di R ien zo and Stefano P orcari) for zond, Palm ieri, and Bishop B attista D e ’ G iudici, O .P ., w ould not have
a re tu rn to the R o m an republic, m u tte re d treasonously against “ papal hesitated to b rin g to the P o p e ’s a tte n tio n .120 T h ere was, for instance, a
ty ra n n y ’’, and gave others the im pression of holding heretical beliefs. In large am o u n t of overlap in the m em bership of the P o m p o n ian and
F eb ru ary of 1468 the C a rd in a ls F o rtig u erri and G o nzaga inform ed the Bessarionic A cadem ies; L eto and P latina had both been habitues ot
Pope that the A cadem icians were conspiring against his life, and nam ed B essarion’s house; it was B essarion who (in effect) stood bond for L eto ’s
‘'C a llim a c h u s’’ (Filippo B uonaccorsi), P latina, “ P e tre iu s’’ (Pietro good behavior after his ex trad itio n ; Bessarion was afterw ards the leader
D em etrio), and “ G la u c u s’’ (L ucio C o n d u lm e r) as the ringleaders. T h e in u rging their release from p ris o n .121 O ne of G eo rg e’s m ain charges
R o m an police acted swiftly, m aking n u m ero u s arrests. P latin a was in ­ against Plato was the la tte r’s supposed advocacy of voluptas and sodom y,
carcerated once m ore in the C astel S a n t’Angelo, and P om ponio Leto, charges that had been m ade against B essarion’s proteges A ndreas C on-
who was stan d in g trial in V enice for sodom y, was bro u g h t back in chains trariu s and Niccolo P erotti as well as against the A cadem icians. G eorge
for trial. T h e conspirators w ere charged w ith republicanism , irreligion, had also exposed in his Comparatio and Adversus Theodorum Gazam the
heresy, neopaganism , and sodom y. A lthough Leto and P latina were neopagan rites of G em istus Pletho, rites whose sim ilarity to those p ractic­
ultim ately acquitted of the charge of heresy and released, the affair kept ed by the P om p o n ian A cadem y has even led some historians to assum e
R om e in tu rm oil for m ost of the su m m er, and the papal legate was still (w rongly) a direct influence of Pletho upon Leto. M oreover, one of the
tryin g to secure C a llim a c h u s’ ex trad itio n from Poland as late as 1470. princelings im plicated in the A cadem ic conspiracy had been Sigism ondo
T h e re is, to be sure, no direct evidence that Paul suspected either M alatesta, know n to be a great ad m irer of Pletho; so far, indeed, had he
B essarion’s circle or P latonism of h aving played a role in this conspiracy. carried his a d m iratio n that he arranged to have P leth o ’s body brought
Insofar as the philosophical views of the A cadem icians w ere know n, they from the P eloponnesus back to R im ini where he entom bed it anew in his
seem ed to Paul to sm ack ra th e r o f E picureanism than of P la to n ism .118 “ n e o p a g a n ’’ T em p io M alatestian o designed by Leon B attista A lb e rti.122
T h e persecution of learn in g begun by Paul in the wake of the conspiracy Bessarion was a friend of M alatesta and had w ritten some adm iring
was not directed against the philosophical scholarship of B essarion’s cir­ verses on his sister C le o p e .123*So it would have been an easy m atter for
cle, b u t against astrology and the teaching of pagan poetry to the some op p o n en t of Bessarion to tar him with the sam e b ru sh th at had
y o u n g .119 M oreo v er, B essarion’s hostility to republicanism , w hich we besm eared the A cadem icians. Paul II had already, as we have seen, had
shall discuss presently, m ust have been well know n. N evertheless, there some suspicions of the orthodoxy of B essarion’s “ P lato n ists’’; and the
w ere still n u m ero u s connections betw een the A cadem ic conspiracy and w ord Academia had b egun to have a conspiratorial ring in his ears. As the
M ilanese am b assad o r w rote in his report, Paul had said th at “ they would
118 Pastor. 4:50. Whatever the actual views of the conspirators, it is undeniable that

Paul II at least (as his views are reported by the Milanese ambassador) thought them to
be materialists who denied the existence of God and the immortality of the soul, practiced
neopagan rites, and gave themselves up to sodomy and hedonistic pleasures. The charges 120 On D e’Giudici see D ’Amico, Renaissance Humanism , p. 95, and Kristeller in

against Leto (as also against Platina) were unfounded according to Dunston and Medieval Aspects of Renaissance Learning , ed. E. P. Mahoney, Duke Monographs in
Zabughin. Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1 (Durham, N .C ., 1974), pp. 128-129. D e’ Giudici
119 Paul’s policies with respect to the teaching of the humanities in fact bear a remark­ had already shown his cultural conservatism by opposing, like Alfonso ol Cartagena,
able resemblance to the views of earlier opponents of the humanities such as Giovanni Bruni’s new translation of the Nicomachean Ethics on the grounds that the older scholastic
Dominici, Giovanni da San Miniato, and Ermolao Barbaro the Elder (who dedicated to version was philosophically more accurate.
Paul his Contra poetas), which suggests that his commitment to humanism, argued for by 121 For connections between the academies of Leto and Bessarion, see L. Labowsky’s

Weiss (Un umamsta veneziano, Papa Paolo II [Venice, 1958]), was a rather limited affair. article on Bessarion in D B I 9: 693. Bessarion had earlier been responsible for bringing
Paul spoke bitter words against questi studii di humamta for encouraging moral corruption another papal enemy to Rome, who was also a rival of George of Trebizond, namely,
through the reading of the poets, and was particularly opposed to the teaching of the Lorenzo Valla.
pagan poets to children: “ Pensate come se degono pov impire de mille altri vicii quando 122 For Malatesta’s part in the Academic conspiracy, see Pastor 4: 50; Malatesta s

legcno Juvenale. Terentio, Plauto, Ovidio et questi altri libri, dicendo Juvenale monstra relationship with Pletho is discussed by Monfasani, p. 214. George later came to hear
de preprendere li vicii, ma el ne fa docto et li insigna ad chi lo lege . . . ” (Pastor 4: 491); of Malatesta’s reburial of Pletho’s body and warned him that if he did not cast the body
he also apparently tried vainly to prohibit the reading of poets in school. The most into the sea he would die; the prophecy was fulfilled.
balanced treatment of Paul’s position is in Dunston, “ Pope Paul II” , pp. 804-805; see 123 See Woodhouse, p. 113; for Leto’s supposed debt to Pletho’s mythology, see

also King, p. 1571. for the Venetian background to Paul’s more conservative ideas about Kieszkowski, p. 45. Bessarion had also written verses on Pletho himself after his death,
the humanities. but it is unlikely they were known outside his own circle.
214 P A R T III ROME 215

be considered heretics who h ereafter shall m ention the nam e Academia serious person does not entirely agree? You see, Holy Father—you see it
either seriously or in j e s t.” 124 plainly—that whoever dares profess himself the detractor and (as it were) the
mortician of the divine Plato must be playing the part of a gadfly or be spinn­
Bessarion and the hum anists of his circle soon acted to prevent dam age ing in mental confusion. For all the ancients, all the men of the Middle Ages,
to the c a rd in a l’s rep u tatio n for holiness an d orthodoxy. Bessarion had all the most learned men of our age, all Greeks, barbarians and Christians,
been a leading candidate for the papacy in 1455 and 1464, and any hint of revere, honor and preach Plato as though he were an oracle.127
heresy or disloyalty to church trad itio n could have cost him valuable sup­
In his preface to A puleius d e ’Bussi also announced the im m inent
port in the next conclave, thus d isap p o in tin g the hopes of his a d h e re n ts.125
publication of B essarion’s In calumniatorem Platonis which duly appeared
G iovanni A n d rea d e ’Bussi, Bishop of A leria and a p ro m in en t m em ber of
later that su m m er, probably in A ugust, in an edition of 300 copies. T his
B essarion’s A cadem y, published in F eb ru ary of 1469 a p rin ted edition of
m assive work, w hich will be dealt with in some detail below, was in ten d ­
A puleius platomcus dedicated to Paul II, w hich seems to have been p art of
ed to be the definitive answ er of the Bessarion circle to the critics of Plato,
a concerted press cam paign to pro m o te the rep utation and authority of
to crush once and for all the ignorant calum nies of the Comparatio and
Plato, the first such cam paign in the history of p rin tin g .126 In the preface
destroy G eo rg e’s rep u tatio n as a scholar and philosopher. U ltim ately, it
he cites a large n u m b er of classical au th o rities testifying to P la to ’s wisdom
becam e one of the m ost im p o rtan t texts in the history of Platonism , being
and rectitude, and links the Platonism of the late N icolaus C u sanus, who
reprinted frequently in the later fifteenth and sixteenth ce n tu rie s.128 But
had been a friend of Paul I I ’s, w ith that of Bessarion:
it did not succeed in silencing G eorge. By the end of A ugust he had w rit­
I showed at the beginning of my preface that Cardinal Bessarion, the most ten a long letter of reply to Bessarion h im se lf29 and in the au tu m n of the
excellent of men, was with good reason very well disposed towards Plato, sam e year he was already circulating his Annotationes on the Calumniator,
and I have shown the same also in the case of Nicholas of Cusa, formerly
Cardinal ot St. Peter’s. Who but a vain fool will dare disagree with the two which latter text, he claim ed, contained thirteen heretical statem ents. In
men who are easily the most learned men of our day? What sound and J u n e of 1470 G eo rg e’s son A ndreas sent the Annotationes to Paris, evident­
ly in the hope that the theologians there would condem n B essarion’s
124 Dispatch of Giovanni Blanco to Galeazzo Maria Sforza, published in E. Motta, work. News of this move reached Bessarion through his friend, the
Societa Regia di storia patna, Archiuio, vol. 7 (1884), pp. 488-492 at 491. French hu m an ist G uillaum e Fichet, at that tim e rector of the U niversity
125 That Bessarion should become Pope was naturally the ardent wish of the Uniate
of Paris. B essarion sent him a copy of the Calumniator together with a new
community in Rome and elsewhere; see especially the letter of Michael Apostolis to
Bessarion in H. Noiret, Lettres meditees de Michel Apostolis pubhees d ’apres les mss. du Vatican, w ork refuting the Annotationes which had been com posed by his adherents
avec des opuscules inedils (Paris, 1889), p. 70, no. XLVII. George of Trebizond, who Perotti and D om izio C a ld e rin i.130*W ith a rem arkable appreciation of the
suspected the Uniates of importing to Rome the “ Platonic” heresies of the Orthodox
church, was equally anxious that he should not.
126 See de’Bussi’s preface in B. Botfield, Prefaces to the First Editions of the Greek and

Roman Classics (London, 1861), p. 73; “ Quintus ordine is liber [Apuleii De dogmate Platonis] 127 Botfield, Prefaces, p. 77: “ Ostendi initio mee prefationis, virum excellentissimum

sequitur, qui quasi calumniatores futures Platonis aliquando presagiens, velud dedita Bessarionem Cardinalem Nicenum Platoni magna ratione esse affectissimum; idipsum
opera, ad defensionem divini hominis putari potest esse perscriptus atque preparatus.” et de Nicolao Cusensi Cardinali dum viveret sancti Petri declaravi. Quis igitur nisi inep-
A number of passages are direct answers to George’s Comparaiio (which de’Bussi assumes tus et vanus audebit nostra etate a viris his duobus, facile doctorum principibus, dissen-
Paul II to have read), for example, the (p. 73) passage stressing Apuleius’ innocent inter­ tire? Quis gravis et sanus, non maxune consentire? Vides, pater beatissime, plane vides,
pretation of the daimonium of Socrates, which answers George’s charge of demon­ quanto asilo agi, quanta vertigine contorqueri debeat, quisquis sese obtrectatorem et
possession in the Comparatio, 1.6 ( = sign. B vii r). In April of 1469 an edition of Aulus quasi pollinctorem divini Platonis audeat profited; quern prisci omnes, quem veteres,
Gellius appeared under de’Bussi’s editorship and an edition of Macrobius was planned, quem medie tempestatis homines, quem nostre etatis maximi, quem Greci, quem Bar-
but never appeared. Apuleius. Gellius, and Macrobius were all authors relied upon bari, quem Christiani omnes eruditissimi, oraculi vice colant, observent et predicent.’
heavily in Book IV of Bessarion’s Calumniator to establish Plato’s holiness and moral rec­ 128 See the testimonia to the reception of the Calumniator collected in Mohler, vol. 3

titude. For the “ press campaign” see M. D. Feld, “ Sweynheym and Pannartz, Cardinal and Aldus’ preface to his 1502 edition of the text.
Bessarion, Neoplatonism: Renaissance Humanism and Two Early Printers’ Choice of 129 Edited by Monfasani, Trapezunliana, pp. 161-188.

Texts,” Harvard Library Bulletin (1982): 282-335. Feld also suggests that Bessarion chang­ 130 For the details, see Monfasani, George of Trebizond, pp. 226-228. The Refutatio

ed his will after the exposure of the plot, and left his books to the city of Venice rather deliramentorum Georgii Trapezuntn is edited in Mohler 3: 343-376, and the letters to Fichet
than to the monastery of San Giorgio in Venice, because he feared his library might fall in ibid., pp. 554-562. Monfasani has now demonstrated the close relationship between
into Paul II’s hands. But this cannot be true, since Paul himself approved the change in Perotti’s Refutatio and a work of Domizio Calderini, preserved in Verona, Bibl.
Bessarion’s will and in any case the decision to change the will was reached already by Capitolare MS CCLVII, ff. 286r-317v; see his “ II Perotti e la controversia,” (note 62
September 14, 1467, months before the conspiracy was revealed. See L. Labowsky, above), pp. 202-203. Fichet never printed the Calumniator, but he did print Bruni s
Bessarion’s Library (note 133, below), p. 151. translation of the Letters (p. 98, above).
 216 ' P A R T III ROME 217

pow er of the press, Bessarion urged Fichet to have the two works printed in the q u arrel was the question w hether Platonic philosophy could indeed
at the u n iv ersity ’s p rin tin g press (w hich Fichet himself had founded) and take the place of A ristotelianism as the philosophical h an d m aid of C h ris­
suggested that rich rew ards m ight be forthcom ing from R om e in retu rn tian theology. T his, as we have seen, had been a pious hope of hum anists
for his cooperation. L ater, A nd reas C o n tra riu s and even the A ristotelian since the tim e of Petrarch, b ut by the 1460s vital elem ents in the situation
J o h n A rgyropoulos w rote attacks on G e o rg e .131 T h e controversy, indeed, had changed. Now L atin hum anists had seriously to face for the first time
was only b ro u g h t to an end w ith the accession of Sixtus IV in 1471 and the task of reconciling the text of the Platonic dialogues with the context
with the d eaths of G eorge and Bessarion in 1472. of a living C h ristian society, to show in detail how one m ight benefit the
other. W ith the spreading know ledge of G reek, w ith the appearance of
* * *
hum anistically-trained conservatives such as G eorge of T reb izo n d , with
T he P lato-A ristotle controversy has a long and com plex history, and it the developm ent of m ore p en etratin g critical techniques, the easy route
would clearly be a m istake to search for som e deeper causes that unified of bow dlerization, C h ristianization, and eclecticism favored by earlier
the quarrel from beginning to end. It is q uite im possible to divide the hum anists was no longer possible. T he em ergence of new exegetical tech­
partisans of A ristotle and P lato neatly into ideological or ecclesiological niques to m eet this challenge will be the subject of the last section of this
cam ps, as has som etim es been done in the older literature; in reality, the P art; but first, we m ust take a closer look at the P latonism of C ardinal
significance of the contest changed from one year to the next, and from Bessarion.
one protagonist to anoth er. For Pletho, attack ing A ristotle was a way of
subverting the Latin and U n iate position in the G reek East, and of show ­
4. Cardinal Bessarion and Plato
ing the superiority of H ellenic theology. For Scholarius, on the other
hand, to defend A ristotle was p rim arily , perhaps, a defense of his own B essarion’s life and opinions developed in ways quite different from those
intellectual property, and secondarily an attem p t to beat back the threat of G eorge, and these differences help account for B essarion’s m uch m ore
of a revived paganism . In the G reek em igre com m unity in R om e, the respectful response to and in terp retatio n of Plato and his philosophy.133
controversy began as a deb ate betw een the L atinophron and H ellenizing Born in 1403 at T reb izo n d into a family of superior craftsm en, he came
m em bers o f B essarion’s circle, but w ith the en trance of G eorge of T rebi- early u n d er the notice of the m etropolitan of that city who sent him to
zond into the fray, su p p o rted to som e degree by Paul II, the quarrel C onstantinople at the age of thirteen to further his religious training.
becam e a th reat to B essarion’s rep u tatio n for orthodoxy and his hopes to T h ere he studied G reek literatu re and philosophy and m ay have attended
gain the papal tiara. B essarion him self perh ap s was m ost concerned to the school of rhetoric m ain tain ed by G eorgios C hrysokokkes. L ater he
establish the value of the G reek h eritage of Platonism in face of the began theological studies w ith Jo h an n es C hortasm enos, the bishop of
A ristotelian prejudices of W estern scholastics, while G eorge for his part Selym bria, d u rin g which tim e he acquired the first volum es of what was
had elevated the contest into an epic struggle against the A n tich rist.132 one day to n u m b er am ong the m ost fam ous of R enaissance lib raries.134
O th e r W estern h um anists, such as Filelfo, Poliziano, and Fichet, saw the A fter jo in in g the Basilian o rd er in 1423 he advanced quickly through
clash prim arily as an attack on good letters, and tended to put G eorge
in the category of trad itio n al oppo n en ts o f “ good lite ra tu re ” . 133 For the older literature on Bessarion, see L. Labowsky in D B I 9 (1967): 686-696;

N evertheless, if there is no u n ita ry social, econom ic, or political m atrix among the more recent studies the most relevant here are E. Mioni, “ Bessarione
bibliofilo e Filologo,” Rivista di studi bizantim e neoellemci, n.s., 5 (1968); 61-83; A. Coccia,
of causes w hich enables us to m ake sense of the controversy, there is a
“ Vita e opere del Bessarione,” in II Cardinale Bessarione nel V Centenano della morte
single p red o m in atin g them e w hich is in separably linked with the subject (1472-1972) (Rome, 1974), pp. 24-51 (other papers from the same conference may be
of this book. T h e great q uestion th at hovered behind all the participants found in Miscellanea francescana 73 [1973]; 249-386); Miscellanea marciana di studi bessanonei
(Padua, 1976); L. Labowsky, Bessarion's Library and the Biblioteca Marciana: Six Early Inven­
tories, Sussidi eruditi 31 (Rome, 1979); E. J. Stormon, “ Bessarion before the Council of
1:11For the limits of Argyropoulos’ supposed “ Platonism” , see below, p. 350. Florence; A Survey of His Early Writings,” Byzantina Australiensia 1 (1980): 128-156; C.
132 For Bessarion’s motives, see further below, p. 232f. The view of C. H. Lohr, in Bianca, “ La formazione della biblioteca latina del Bessarione,” in Scnttura, biblioteche e
CH R P, p. 561, that the quarrel concerned “ the role of philosophy in theology” , cannot stampa a Roma nel Quattrocento (Vatican City, 1980), pp. 103-165; J. Monlasani,
be maintained, for George himself practiced the same kind o i theological syncretism be­ “ Bessarion Latinus,” Rinascimento 21 (1981): 165-209; idem, “ Still More on Bessarion
tween Aristotle and Christianity that he accused the Bessarion circle of practicing with Latinus,” ibid. 23 (1983): 217-235.
Plato; see App, 14. 134 See Labowsky, Bessarton's Library, pp. 6 , 504.
218 P A R T III ROME 219

m inor orders to be o rd ain ed priest in 1431. Even before he had achieved fourth book clearly represents an elegiac m odulation of P leth o ’s belief
this rank, how ever, he had already begun to display that talent for that to reintroduce P lato ’s laws into G reece was the best way to revive
diplom acy and for m oving easily in the society of the pow erful which the ancient virtues of the H ellenes and defeat the T u r k .137 M ore p ro ­
m arked him in later life. By 1426, certainly, he had entered the service blem atically, one m ay point to Pletho as the likeliest inspiration for
of Jo h n V III Paleologos, for in that year he took part in a diplom atic m is­ B essarion’s use of Proclan henads to put P lato ’s polytheism in a positive
sion to the court of Alexios IV C om n en o s, em peror of T reb izo n d . lig h t,138 as well as his use of P lutarch and A lexander of A phrodisias to
It was som etim e betw een 1431 and 1433 that Bessarion decided to argue for the superiority of P lato to Aristotle on the questions of free will
complete his education by stu d y in g m athem atics and Platonic philosophy and P ro v id en ce.139 In other cases, as for exam ple in the frequent ap ­
at M istra u n d er G em istus P letho. Little is known of B essarion’s sojourn pearance of Stoic strains in B essarion’s in terpretation of Plato, it is dif­
in the Peloponnesus beyond the fact th at he evidently co ntinued to hone ficult to tell w hether B essarion’s sim ilarity to Pletho is a m atter of direct
his diplom atic skills by a tte m p tin g to reconcile the D espot of M istra, influence or of com m on so u rces.140 A nd it cannot be denied that
Theodoros II P o rphvrogenitos, w ith his b ro th er J o h n V III Paleologos. B essarion’s account of Plato and Aristotle differs at m any key points from
But som ething of P leth o ’s influence on the young Basilian m onk can be P leth o ’s in te rp re ta tio n .141 Yet it rem ains highly probable that it was
inferred from B essarion’s later interests and co n v ictio n s.135 T his is Pletho who taught Bessarion to approach the text of Plato through the ex-
perhaps most obvious in the case o f his political opinions. In response to egetical traditions of an tiq u ity and the B yzantine M iddle Ages.
T re b iz o n d ’s charge th at following P la to ’s teachings had b rought about
the downfall of the B yzantine em p ire, Bessarion in his Calumniator
declares w ith w hat is obviously deep em otion that all h u m an things are 115f.) and materials supplied by other members of the Bessarion circle (Labowsky, “ An
subject to decay, including em pires, and th at the B yzantine em pire had Unknown Treatise” [note 91, above]), as well as from from Bessarion’s earlier Latin ver­
sion of the first redaction, but in many cases shortens, misunderstands, or otherwise
lasted longer than m any o th er em pires which had had no tincture of the departs significantly from the latest Greek redaction of the Calumniator as printed in
Platonic teachings. Indeed, w rote B essarion, B yzantium had fallen Mohler. In many cases these changes have plainly been undertaken in the interest of
precisely because it a b an d o n ed the ancient ways and holy laws w hich had making Bessarion’s rather logorrhetic discourse more clear, compact and rhetorically
powerful. Finally, even after the printing of the Calumniator, Perotti and Bessarion con­
been in harm ony with P la to ’s d o c trin e .136 T h is passage and m uch of the tinued to revise the text (Monfasani, “ Still More” [note 133, above]), though none of
these changes made their way into later printed editions as far as is known. But despite
the questionable value of the printed Latin version as a reflection of Bessarion’s thought,
135 On the subject of Bessarion’s relationship with Pletho, see Mohler l:339f., Kliban- Perotti’s version cannot simply be abandoned here, first, because it sometimes contains
skv (1943), p. 311, and Saffrev-Westerink 1 : CLX. Klibansky quotes a letter of apparently authorial material not found in any Greek redaction, and second, because
Bessarion’s to Pletho where the latter is referred to as “ the only initiate and true guide Bessarion’s interaction with the Latin scholarship is primarily what is at issue in this
to the vision of the Platonic mysteries The close connection between Pletho’s known study. In what follows, then, I shall quote in the first instance from the printed Greek
interests and many of the books later collected by Bessarion has been noted by Labowsky, text when the chief purpose is to establish Bessarion's own views, and from the Latin ver­
p. 6 , note 1 1 . sion when the primary interest is Bessarion’s impact on Western readers.
13b Calumniator IV. 16 ( = Mohler 2:620): inzm a 8 e, ei ti xai Sia voucov f| XP'Ha;tv ’l 137 For Pletho’s views see Masai, p. 6 6 f.
;rapa|3aaiv SiaXuaeax; dtpxqs aittav napzaxov, ou 8 ta to xpf|aaa6 ai vopoip toi? IlXattovo?, aXXa 138 Compare Calumniator III.5 ( = Mohler 2:233f.) with Masai, p. 208f.
toovavTtov paXXov, oxt xdiv nap' auxou; efts fktcov xai (epciv eixE ttoXittxdw vopcov, zy' oaov 139 Compare Calumniator II.9 and III.29 ( = Mohler 2:165f. and 413f.) with Masai, pp.
aoxoic xai oi nXaxcovixoi aupipcovouaiv, napa ta apyaia autou; eOt] oXtycopax; iaxov. This 186f. and 238f. Neither Masai nor Woodhouse identifies the proximate sources of
passage and much of the chapter is omitted in the Latin version. For the relationship be­ Pletho’s interpretation of Plato and Aristotle’s respective views on Fate and Providence,
tween the Greek and Latin versions printed by Mohler, see Monfasani, “ Bessarion but compare De differentiis, ed. Lagarde, pp. 332-333 with ps. Plutarch, De plac. philos.
Latinus” (note 133). As Monfasani’s work makes clear, many problems regarding the II, 3 (887e), and Alexander of Aphrodisias, De fato, passim.
textual history of the Calumniator are still far from a solution, and the work as a whole 140 The Stoic theory of xoivt] ttp6 Xr)<{HS whose role in Pletho’s thought Masai so much
stands in need of a new edition, but the general situation seems to be the following. The emphasizes (esp. p. 115f.) is also important for Bessarion (see esp. Calumniator II. 11); a
Greek text printed by Mohler is Bessarion’s final redaction of a much shorter text he had platonizing version of it is implicit in much of his attempt to reconcile Plato and Aristotle.
first composed in 1459 and revised several times in the 1460s. In the early 1460s he had Bessarion’s reference in the Calumniator [see below, p. 256) to the Pythagorean belief that
himself produce’d a Latin version (Venice, Bibl. Marciana, Zan. lat. 230 [coll. 1672]) of true teaching should be conducted orally (“ they would be wiser to have sciences in their
this earlier redaction. Later he produced the much longer redaction in Greek which ap­ souls rather than in books” ) sounds very close to Pletho’s remark in the Reply to Scholanos
pears in Mohler’s volume 2. His secretary, Niccolo Perotti, was apparently responsible (PG 160: 983D), though it is possible Bessarion was working directly with Pletho's
for the free Latin translation of this text which appeared in the 1469 and all later editions source, Iamblichus’ De vita pylhagonca (see note 234 below).
of the Calumniator, including M ohlers. Perotti seems to have worked both from the dossier 141 See for example Bessarion’s FIpos ta nXf)9a>vo<; rtp6 < ; ’ApiaxoxfXr) tiepi ouaiai; in
containing the various redactions of the Greek text (see Labowsky, Bessarion's Library, p. Mohler 3:148-150.
220 P A R T III ROME 221

In view of B essarion’s debt to Pletho, it is ra th e r su rp risin g and even pronounced the inaugural discourse for the G reeks at the first ses­
perhaps significant that there are so few references to him in the fo rm e r’s sion of the C ouncil. H e was at first a firm defender of the G reek position,
surviving works. H e did attem p t to open a correspondence with Pletho b u t, som etim e after the C ouncil was transferred to Florence, his discus­
on some philosophical questions aro u n d 1447, and received a som ew hat sions w ith the L atin theologians and his own m ore intense study ot the
distant reply. B essarion's conversion to R o m a n C atholicism , one m ust F athers convinced him that a form ula on the filioque question could be
suppose, had d riven a wedge betw een him and his form er teacher, even found th at did not falsify either the G reek or the L atin position and could
if it is not the case that P le th o ’s treatise On the Latin Dogma w hich a p ­ provide a basis for union. Inevitably this form ula cam e to be virtually
peared shortly afterw ards was directed against Bessarion, as was once identical w ith the actual w ording of the L atin dogm a, b u t Bessarion was
th o u g h t.142 Yet upon P le th o ’s d eath in 1452, Bessarion w rote a w arm let­ able to b rin g over to his view of the m atter the E m peror and most of the
ter of ap p reciation to his two sons in M istra and a sim ilar letter to G reek p arty (with the notable exceptions of Pletho and M arcus
Nicolaus S ecundinus praising P leth o ’s w isdom and v irtu e .143 In neither Eugenicus). B essarion’s argum ents, and (no doubt m ore im portantly)
letter, how ever, does he praise P le th o ’s piety or orthodoxy. W hat is m ore the hope for m ilitary aid from the W est against the T u rk , finally brought
rem arkable is the alm ost com plete silence from Bessarion about Pletho the G reeks to accede to union with the W estern C h u rch , and in Ju ly of
after this date. H e does not attem p t to defend his old teacher from T rebi- 1439, at a grand cerem ony in the D uom o of Florence, the schism was for­
z o n d ’s violent denunciatio n s of his paganism even in the Calumniator, mally ended.
which answ ers every one of G e o rg e ’s o th er points seriatim; only once in W h at is im p o rtan t in this history for o u r purposes is the role played
the entire work does he refer to Pletho, in passing, as “ vir plato n icu s” by the N eoplatonic conception of knowledge, consciousness and
(2:273). Is this sim ply a case of estran g em en t, or did Bessarion him self language in helping Bessarion to form ulate a concordance between the
believe the accusations of heresy (at least) against Pletho, as his fam iliar G reek and L atin dogm as. T his conception contrasted strongly with the
T heo d o re G aza plainly did, or did Bessarion m erely w ant to let sleeping logical and legalistic character of “ scholastic” reading, as we have des­
dogs lie? If he did suspect Pletho of pagan ism , it seems likely that he did cribed it in the Introduction. In principle, to be sure, there was no reason
not com m unicate his suspicions to his “ A cad em y” , for P latina in his why scholastic techniques could not have been used to reconcile the
Panegyncus, Niccolo C a p ra n ic a in his public funeral oratio n , and M ichael authorities recognized by the G reek church with the credal form ulae of
Apostolis in his literary funeral o ratio n all m ention the fact that Bessarion the L atin church or vice versa. T his had in fact been done m any times
had studied with Pletho, which surely they w ould not have done had the in the two previous centuries by Latin scholastics attem p tin g to refute the
latter been widely believed to be a p a g a n .144 G reek position on filioque. T h e difficulty was rath er that in both churches
A fter some years with Pletho, B essarion retu rn ed to C o nstantinople these credal form ulae had since the beginning of the schism become
and quickly received ecclesiastical preferm en t. In 1436 he was m ade em bedded in traditions of exegesis which were m utually incom patible.
hegumenos of the m onastery of St. Basil and a year later becam e the T h e tendency of W estern scholasticism , especially, was in the course of
m etropolitan ot N icaea. H e also began to play a leading p art in ec­ tim e to define ever m ore sharply and subtly the m eaning and application
clesiastical politics. It is repo rted , at least, that it was in p art at his advice of trad itional dogm as. M oreover, the G reek theologians at the C ouncil
that J o h n V III Paleologus decided to accept the invitation of Pope were unfam iliar with and therefore hostile to the L atin reliance upon the
E ugene IV to atten d a C ouncil of U nion betw een the G reek and L atin syllogism and upon principles of A ristotelian science to settle theological
churches. In N ovem ber of 1437, Bessarion took ship as p art of the disputes. T o the G reeks, W estern dialectical m ethod was at best irrele­
E m p e ro r’s delegation to the C ouncil an d arrived in V enice the following vant and at w orst positively an obstacle to the u nion of the C hurches. As
F ebruary; thence the O rth o d o x p arty m oved to F errara w here the C o u n ­ the O rth o d o x prelate Isidore of K iev w rote in a speech to the C ouncil,
cil of U nion officially opened in O cto b er of 1438. B essarion, despite his “ I say w ith regret that [the frequent use by L atin theologians of the
youth, was nam ed as one of six “ o ra to rs ” for the O rth o d o x p arty and 4 syllogism has] rath er deepened the schism and [has] m ade the
disagreem ents greater and stro n g e r.” S cholarius’ attitu d e was sim ilar;
addressing the G reek synod he rem arked, “ I know that you, O G reeks,
l4’ Maintained by Mohler (1:222), who is refuted by Masai (p. 3891'.).
1,1 Mohler 3:460-470. in m atters of this sort have no confidence in proofs from reason but con­
1,4 Platina in PC 161.cv: Capranica in Mohler 3:406; Apostolis in PC 161:133. sider them suspect and m isleading; m uch m ore then will you both keep
 222 P A R T III ROME 223

clear of syllogising per impossible and be on y o u r guard against others who not proceed from epistem ological skepticism or technical logical con­
do th a t.” A nd the fiercely orthodox Syropoulos in his “ secret h isto ry ” siderations, as did that of the via moderna, b u t rath er from principles of
of the C ouncil records the reaction of one of the G eorgian ecclesiastics D ionysian theology. In B essarion’s view the discursive reasoning of the
to the constant q u o tatio n of A ristotle by L atin theologians: “ ‘W hat dialectician was chiefly ap propriate to the lower w orld of tim e, nature,
about A ristotle, Aristotle? A fig for y o u r fine A risto tle.’ A nd w hen I by and h u m an affairs; it was always inferior to the intuitive grasp of divina
word and gesture asked: ‘W h at is fin e?’, the G eorgian replied: ‘St. P eter, enjoyed by superior philosophical m inds and by those inspired with the
St. Paul, St. Basil, G regory the T heologian; a fig for your A ristotle, H oly Spirit. In the Calumniator he makes a telling com parison. T he rela­
A risto tle.’ ” 145 tionship of Plato to A ristotle, he argues, is that of source to epitom e, or
B essarion’s own attitu d e to W estern scholasticism was m ore com plex of cause to effect. W e are of course grateful to A ristotle for having re­
and am biguous than that of his fellow B yzantines. It is true that in the duced the sciences to text-book form , b ut we should not m erely for that
third book of his Calumniator he relies heavily on the au th o rity of T hom as, reason think him superior to Plato, any m ore than we think a com piler
Scotus, A lbert, H en ry of G h en t an d o th er theologians of the high of rhetorical handbooks is superior to a genuine o rator, or any more than
scholastic period in o rd er to prove th at G e o rg e ’s interp retatio n of A risto­ we think a scholastic theologian is superior to the Fathers.148 Behind this com ­
tle is idiosyncratic and unreliable. It is also true that he now here con­ parison lurk two principles. T h e First is the principle ol some Byzantine
dem ns scholasticism o u trig h t and that in his Calumniator and his treatise and hum anistic philologists that authority resides, not in com pendia ot
De processione Spintus Sancti he occasionally ap p roxim ated scholastic-style sententiae or in sum m ae, but in the original sense of the au th o r, properly
a rg u m e n ts .'46 Yet B essarion never really m astered the form al syllogism u nderstood th rough historical and philological criticism . T he second is
and seems to have retained th ro u g h o u t his life a prejudice against the use the N eoplatonic principle that a cause is ontologically p rior to its effect;
of dialectic in theology. Like m an y fo u rteen th -century critics of the scien­ this fu rther entails that knowledge of a cause is epistem ically superior to
tific claims of scholastic theology, Bessarion did not believe in the power know ledge of effect in se, while the effect is better know n quoad nos.1*9
of logic and A ristotelian scientific principles to d em onstrate theological
conclusions. In a letter to Alexios L ascaris after the C ouncil, Bessarion
ciples which end arguments rather than begin them: opaipEv Be xai xa? oixou(ievixai; arcaaai;
denied hotly that he had been com pelled by the syllogisms of the Latin auvoBoup 7tepi twv exaaxr) 7tpoxeip.evcov Bovpiatwv “ oux av0pa>7UVT]<; aocpiap ttetOcn [1 Cor.
theologians: “ T h e w ords [of the Fathers] by them selves alone are enough 2 :4], ou xeyvc'-oytau; pripaxcov, ou cpoaixoli; Xoyou;, ou auXXoyiap.oii; xPTl<3aM-^vai>> p.ovq>
to solve every dou b t and to p ersuade every soul. It was not syllogisms or <rxotxil<Jav'c^ xptxqpicp xoup 7taxepap xoix; ev auxoi? yupvau; xai? xd>v npd auxaiv reaxepwv xai
SiBaaxaXwv SiBaaxaXiau; xai Xoroi?, xai Bia xouxcov aupTtEpavavxa? xa Ttepi xuv exaaxoxe
probabilities or arg u m en ts th at convinced m e, but the bare w ords [of the ^T]xou(xevcov Boyqaxcov, xai xax’ tyvo^ [the same word he uses to describe Plato s relation­
F a th e rs].” 147*But B essarion’s criticism of theological dem onstrations did ship to the Christian faith, see below, note 183] axoXouOriaavxe!; xai? xcov cpwvai?. In this
connection one may note an incident from the earlier stages of the Council, when, during
one of the colloquies with the Latins during which the Greeks were having particular dif­
145 Isidore, Scholarius, and Syropoulos quoted in J. Gill, The Council of Florence, p. ficulty countering the razor-sharp dialectic ot the Dominican theologians, Bessarion sud­
2271’. It is in light of such statements that we must understand Pletho’s attack on Aristotle denly interrupted an extended “ demonstration’ by Cardinal Cesarim with a complaint,
in the De differentiis and George of Trebizond’s equation of Aristotle with Latin or­ reminiscent of Plato’s Gorgias and Protagoras, about the paxpoXoyiai of the Latins, and re­
thodoxy. quested in future that they use only a short question-and-answer form of debate. See Acta
146 I suspect that many of the scholastic materials in Book III of the Calumniator were graeca, pars I (Ferrara, 13 October), Concilium Florentinum, Documenta et Scriptores, Ser. B
supplied by Bessarion's fam iliaris, the Dominican Giovanni Gatto (d. 1484), whom, in­ (Rome, 1953), 5.1:59-60. This suggests that Bessarion may have privately associated the
deed, Bessarion explicitly acknowledges in III. 18 ( = Mohler 2:305). It is well known that logic of the schools with the rhetorical displays and the eristic reasoning of the ancient
the Calumniator was a collective effort of Bessarion’s entire Celehrtenkreis, that Book III was sophists—an association earlier made, it will be recalled, by Salutati, and which would
a later addition to the original draft of 1459, and that Gatto was not closely associated be made again by Ficino, and by Simon Grynaeus, Peter Ramus and a number ot six­
with Bessarion until the 1460s (J. Quetif and J. Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. [Paris, teenth-century Protestant interpreters of Plato.
1719], 1:867-868). In any case Bessarion’s Calumniator tends to treat the greater 148 Calumniator 1.2 ( = Mohler 2: 23). What Bessarion actually says is that we should
scholastics primarily as authorities for the interpretation of Aristotle rather than as not consider the Byzantine rhetorical handbook of Hermogenes superior to the speeches
sources for apodictic arguments in theology. See below, p. 2491. of Demosthenes; George of Trebizond had written a rhetorical handbook based largely
147 PG 161: 360B, quoted in Gill, Council of Florence, p. 227. Cp. to similar remarks on Hermogenes.
in Dionysius Areopagita, Div. nom . , 1.4, 592B. One should also note Bessarion’s remarks 149 See for instance Proclus, Elements of Theology, Prop. 7 (ed. Dodds, p. 8). That effects
in his Oratio dogmatica De unione, II. 11, ed. E. Candal, Concilium Florentinum, Documenta et are better known than causes quoad nos is implicit in Platonic metaphysics and dialectic
Scriptores, ser. B (Rome, 1958), 7.1:12, where he points out that the Holy Fathers did not (for example in the Symposium ) but is first clearly enunciated by Aristotle in the Posterior
use syllogisms and argues that their SiSaaxaXiat, xai Xoyoi should be regarded as first prin- Analytics, who uses it to justify his view of induction. This Aristotelian principle was, how-
 224 P A R T III ROME 225

It is to both these principles, and not to scholastic d em o nstrations, that w hich tries vainly to express divine things through sounds designed to
Bessarion appeals in his atte m p t to resolve the m ajor theological crux of stand for sensible objects. W h at we as theologians need to do to settle our
the C ouncil of U nion, nam ely, the filioque question. In his Oratio dogmatica controversies is to establish the text of o u r authorities and to pray for
de umone, delivered in A pril of 1439 to the G reek delegation, Bessarion divine guidance; to apply o u r inferior discursive reasoning to sensible
argues that w hat is needed to reconcile the G reek with the L atin Fathers sounds can only cause theological discord. So far as settling the exact
is, first, to establish a correct text of the relevant authorities, both L atin w ording of the creeds is concerned, we need to ju dge the m ore obscure
and G reek, and second, to recognize the true reasons why patristic F athers in light of the clearer F a th e rs.153 T h e Latin symbolum is m ore d e­
authorities ap p ear to contrad ict each other. B essarion’s critical w ork on tailed; hence clearer; hence we m ay conclude that it best captures those
the text of the G reek F athers is well know n and generally recognized as divine tru th s w hich in them selves are beyond the reach of our m inds and
an early exam ple of the use of h u m anistic philological techniques to language. For Bessarion, it was the N eoplatonic— and especially the
resolve theological p ro b le m s.150 Less well known is the role played by D io n y sian — conception of theological noesis which underlay the famous
N eoplatonic m etaphysical conceptions in B essarion’s concord of G reek form ula of u nion, “ u n a religio in varietate ritu u m ” .
and Latin doctors. Bessarion begins by asserting that there is no need for B essarion’s N eoplatonic und erstan d in g of biblical and patristic ex­
the G reeks either to cave in to L atin arg u m ents or to rem ain in tra n ­ egesis is m ore explicit yet not radically different from the u n d erstanding
sig e n t.151 L atin dialectic does not refute the G reek u n d erstan d in g of the held by m any W estern theologians in the m edieval period. T h e rationale
creed; indeed, from the very n atu re of dialectic, it could not. Faith is for Finding different levels of m eaning or “ senses’’ in scripture often im ­
faith; dealing as it does w ith divine things above the reach of discursive plicitly m ade use of w atered N eoplatonic principles, and, as we have
reason (reasoning from principles to conclusions), its dogm as can only be seen, the prejudice in favor of ad verbum translation owes som ething to
grasped directly through the intuitive pow ers of m ind, aided by “ the platonizing theories of language. But there are two new er elem ents in
single pow er and illum ination of the S p irit,’’ rj plot xou tcveupa-cot; 8uvapi<; B essarion’s Oratio. O ne is his use of these N eoplatonic conceptions to
xai £XXap4>i<;. W e know from the faith th at the Fathers cannot have co n ­ un d ercu t the possibility of a science of theology based on dialectic.154*T he
tradicted each other. If the F athers therefore say things which ap p ear to o th er is the im plied possibility of replacing scholastic n atural theology
us strictly contradictory, the fault is not with them , but w ith us. W e have w ith an intuitive w isdom which escapes the clam or and clash of school
not understood their purposes and dispositions. T h e Bible too contains disputations into an em pyrean silence of contem plation where all divi­
statem ents which ap p ear strictly contrad icto ry , yet we know that G od sions m ust d isappear in the peace and unity of the everlasting light.
cannot contradict h im self.152 T h e fault lies with us: with o u r language T h e N eoplatonic critique of scholasticism was to rem ain a steady c u r­
rent in R enaissance and R eform ation E urope, jo in in g w ith the earlier
rivulets of W aldensian dissent and G erm an m ysticism to w ater the secret
ever, generally adopted by the Neoplatonists and understood platomce, that is to say,
reasoning from effects to causes is understood as purifying oneself of sensible attachments
and illusions and draw upon hidden resources of the soul. This is clearly the sense in
which Bessarion understands the priority of cause to effect here. oxi Evavxioovxat auxoi? ol xa? otxovoplai; xai xotx; crxojtou? auxcov pf] ETtiaxdpEvoi T| exeivcov
' ,u For Bessarion's discussions with Valla on matters of textual criticism, see L. evavxioXoylav xe xat avxt^aaiv.
Labowsky, “ An Unnoticed Letter of Bessarion to Lorenzo Valla,” in Mediaeval Learning 153 Ibid., V.24, ed. Candal, p. 22: Oatipaoxov 8i ouSev, d aaOeveatv im xdiv Qdiov cpuivaL;
and Literature: Essays Presented to Richard William Hunt, eds. J. J. G. Alexander and M. T. xs xai prjpaat xptop£0a, pr] aXXax; 8ovap£vot. Ta yap 0£ta Ota xaiv eicoOoxcov psv Tjpfv ovopaxcov
Gibson (Oxford, 1976), pp. 366-375. £xq>atv£iv 7££ipcop£0a; aXXax; yap 9 0 £yy£a0 ai xi youv TiEpi exeIvgjv apTixavov. See also ibid.,
151 Oratio dogmatica, 1.6, ed. Candal, p. 9: piptoxs xto OeXeiv x<xpiaap£voi povov, f| ou ouv IV. 19, ed. Candal, p. 19.
Bixtj• lpipua0<I>fJ.Ev otuxolx;, fj [lExa xai xf)<g ripdiv auxcLv pXdpTis auxoix; xpoaXaPcoptSa. Although 154 For the more usual Western critique of the use of demonstrations in theology, see
Bessarion delivered this speech in Greek to the Greek delegation, its gist was no doubt E. Serene in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, ed. N. Kretzmann, A. Ken­
known to outside persons already at the Council, and since Bessarion prepared or had ny, J. Pinborg and E. Stump (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 496-517. The Western theologian
prepared Latin translations of all his theological works, the possibility of a literary influ­ who comes closest to Bessarion’s position on the limits of dialectic would seem to be
ence ot his theology on Western readers can by no means be dismissed. See Monfasani, Henry of Ghent; see his Summa quaestionum ordinanarum, art. 6-7 (Paris, 1520), If. 47r-63r
“ Bessarion Latinus” , passim. [reference kindly provided by Stephen F. Brown]. A watered Augustinian Platonism
IVi Ibid., III. 15, ed. Candal, p. 15: "Otcou ye xai d avxupaxixcit; xdv Xoyov npotytpov, seems also to have played a role in Jean Gerson’s criticism of scholastic curiositas, superbia.
ax; xotx; piv ex riaxpo?, oux ex xou 'Yiou, xotx; oe ex riaxpoi; xai 'Ytou Xeyetv exxopeueaOat, ouS’ and singularitas', see S. E. Ozment, “ The University and the Church: Patterns of Reform
ouxoi; av arcecprivapriv 0appouvxo<; avxt9 aaxEiv xotx; aytotx; aXXf|Xou;, aXXa paXXov av xaxeyvcjv in Jean Gerson,” Medievaha et Humanishca, n.s., 1 (1970): 111-126. It is unlikely that
epauxou [ir\ auviivxcx; a7tep exetvot cpaai xaxa xo u7to Tapaatou ev xt) epSop/fl elpt]pevou auvoScp, Bessarion during this period knew any of these Western theologians.
226 P A R T III ROME 227

gardens of Italian S piritualism in the sixteenth c e n tu ry .155 W e shall see T h e earliest m ark of B essarion’s grow ing political im portance was his
in the next P art how it appealed to Ficino and his followers d u rin g the ap p o in tm en t by N icholas V as legate a latere to govern the papal city of
second half of the fifteenth-century. M oreover, the N eoplatonic critique Bologna (1450-1455). B essarion’s governance of Bologna gives us some
of scholasticism reinvigorated and gave philosophical substance to a long­ clues as to his political beliefs, clues which are confirm ed by rem arks he
standing cultural prejudice of the h um anists. Seventy years before the later m akes in his Calumniator. Bologna had been suffering from civil
C ouncil of Florence, P etrarch in his De sui ipsius et aliorum ignorantia had strife generated by factionalism between two m ajo r parties, that of the
already, on m oral and religious grounds, attacked the Italian scholastic C eneduli and th at of the Bentivogli; d u rin g the reign of Eugene IV , it
philosophers of his day. H is “ A v erro ists” were ig n o ran t, intellectually had repeatedly sought to break away from papal control. T h e policy of
arrogant, m orally frivolous, educationally useless, and im pious into the E ugene and initially of N icholas V had been to m ain tain control by
bargain. B essarion’s N eoplatonic critique of scholasticism not only p ro ­ b alancing the various parties against each other. B essarion, however,
vided hum anist critics w ith m ore am m u n itio n for their polem ics, but also b ro u g h t up in the m onarchical tradition of B yzantium , took the line that
gave them a substitute form of religious w isdom which was at once con­ the best way to ensure peace was to strengthen the leading party (that of
gruent with the m ore optim istic view of h u m a n capacities characteristic the Bentivogli) and to crush all its rivals. T h u s, w-ith the secret help of
of fifteenth century Italy, and at the sam e tim e could pass as the high C osim o d e ’ M edici, he sought to elevate Sante Bentivogli above his rivals
wisdom of the ancients, both pagan an d C h ristian . T h e capacity of learn ­ and to treat him virtually as the prince of B o logna.156 T he republican
ed initiates to attain an intuitive noesis beyond the reach of scholastic hothead Stefano P orcari, on the other h and, who had been exiled to
science was to becom e a com m on them e of h u m anists and Platonists alike Bologna following an attem p ted coup against N icholas V, Bessarion re­
in the later fifteenth century. B essarion’s N eoplatonic Plato thus m ade q u ired to ap p ear before him each day in o rder to prevent his engaging
available to the W est a sophisticated alternative to the speculative in political agitation. W hen despite B essarion’s efforts Porcari escaped to
theology of the schools, an alternative which offered at once a way to end R om e to fom ent insurrection there, Bessarion im m ediately notified
religious discord and a w isdom h igher and m ore ancient than could be N icholas V , thus enabling the pontiff to crush his conspiracy before it
found in the despised summulae of the friars. could gain m o m e n tu m .157
* * *
B essarion’s opposition in Bologna to a politics of com petition between
kinship groups or p atro n ag e systems (w hich the R enaissance dignified
H ard ly had Bessarion retu rn ed to C o n stan tin o p le from the C ouncil w hen w ith the nam e of “ rep u b lican ism ” ) is of a piece w ith his hostility, ex­
he learned that he had been created (18 D ecem ber 1439) a cardinal of the pressed in the Calumniator, to the pleonexia of the Italian m erchant oligar­
R om an C h u rch . R e tu rn in g to Florence in D ecem ber of 1440, and thence chies an d to the nascent spirit of liberal individualism , both defended by
to R om e with the papal court in 1443, he settled dow n to devote him self G eorge of T reb izo n d . A gainst these un so u n d tendencies Bessarion pits
to the two great tasks which were to occupy him from the 1440s to the the au th o rity of P lato — and, indeed, of A ristotle, whose m oral philoso­
early 1460s: the union of the C h urches and the crusade against the T u rk . phy, as Bessarion tries to show, G eorge had com pletely m isunderstood.
T h ro u g h o u t this period he w orked tirelessly to achieve these ends: re ­ B essarion’s criticism of R enaissance oligarchy158*em erges in the course of
form ing and quelling dissent in his own Basilian o rd er; advising the his defense, in Book IV of the Calumniator, of P la to ’s own political a r­
G reeks how to strengthen their econom y and their defenses; un d ertak in g ran gem ents in the Republic and the Law s, p articularly his prohibitions of
num erous legations to G erm an y and elsew here in the hopes of organizing social m obility, private m arriage, excessive w ealth, and dem ocracy. In
resistance to the T u rk ; serving on papal com m issions and helping to discussing P la to ’s doctrine of m arital com m unism (IV .3), Bessarion
govern the papal states. U ltim ately he was recognized as am ong the most
156 C. M. Ady, The Bentivoglio of Bologna (Oxford, 1937), pp. 48-50, 56-57; Mohler
able and pow erful prelates in R om e. 1:260-269.
157 For Porcari’s career, see M. Miglio, ‘“ Viva la liberta e populo di Roma’, oratoria
e politica a Roma: Stefano Porcari,’’ Archivio della societa romana di stona patna, ser. 3, 97
155 See D. Cantimori, Anabattesimo e neoplatonismo nel X V I secolo in Italia (Rome, 1936); (1974): 5-38.
idem, Eretici italiani del Cinquecento (Florence, 1939), esp. p. 406ff.; S. E. Ozment, 158 In which category Bessarion would not have included Venice, whose stable con­
Mysticism and Dissent: Religious Ideology and Social Protest in the Sixteenth Century (New Haven, stitution and public-spirited patriciate he greatly admired; see the Act of Donation ol his
1973), esp. chapter 7. library to Venice in Labowsky, Bessarion’s Library , pp. 147-149.
228 P A R T III ROME 229

begins by d istancing him self from P lato and offering various excuses for stabilize societies— b ut Plato took the higher and m ore difficult course,
P lato ’s having p rom ulgated so strange a te a c h in g ;159 in the end, how ­ while A ristotle followed the easier ro u te .163 Plato called m en to the com ­
ever, he boldly asserts that the principle beh in d P lato ’s doctrine was cor­ m on good, the one highest good, the universal; A ristotle, believing men
rect an d praisew orthy. T h a t principle was the p a ram o u n t need for unity incapable of such behavior, tried to unify them by appealing to their p a r­
in a s ta te .160 P lato saw correctly that a chief cause of civil discord was ticular, but sim ilar, interests. M etaphysically, A risto tle’s polity is an in­
com petition betw een great fam ilies, an d he hoped by m eans of his ferior reflection of P lato ’s constitution, intended for m en inferior in
m arital arran g em en ts to m ake the ruling classes place th eir loyalty to the virtue. A ristotle’s state is closer to the senses, P la to ’s to the intellect. But
state ahead of all m erely p rivate loyalties. Bessarion even com pares the inferiority of the A ristotelian polity in the hierarchy of constitutions
P lato ’s doctrine with the actions of the R o m a n hero B rutus, who had also does not m ake it contradictory of P lato ’s, still less a co u n ter-authority. If
put country ahead of fam ily .161 Still, B essarion adm its that such a doc­ P la to ’s doctrine of m atrim ony errs, it errs by being too high for m en, not
trine would not produce good results in actual societies, including that too lo w .164
of m odern C h risten d o m , but he claim s th at Plato realized this himself. B essarion’s defense of P la to ’s political doctrine, it will be seen, though
Plato p erm itted m arital com m unism only to a state of perfect virtue ruled far m ore forceful and system atic, bears a rem arkable resem blance to Pier
by an absolutely wise and v irtuous philosopher-king with scientific C an d id o D ecem b rio ’s in its substance. But there are also differences.
knowledge of tr u th .162 Such a m an arises very rarely (oXiyaxu;) indeed, W hile D ecem brio had tried to show that Plato (in the Republic) was in
and even if N atu re does produce him , he needs careful education and favor of rew arding the m erit of individuals of every class, B essarion’s
train in g if he is not to tu rn out worse th an his fellows. Corruptio optimi defense of P la to ’s teachings on lim iting w ealth and social m obility reveals
pessima est. In fact, N atu re needs divine help (9eoG polpa: cf. Rep. V I, a preference for authority, class stability, and aristocratic ethical stan­
492E) to b rin g such a m an to perfection. T h is being the case, we should dards. H e firm ly rejects G eo rg e’s arg u m en t th at allow ing everyone to
und erstan d the social a rran g em en ts of the Republic as suitable to a divinus pursue his own appetites was n atural, productive of m ore individual
status reipublicae, a com m onw ealth of the gods. Plato w rote it as an ex­ pleasure, and beneficial to the state (as reducing social discord). For
em p lar to guide the reason, as a “ visible” d em onstration of the need for everyone to pursue his private good is inim ical to the unity needed in a
unity; which principle being established, it could be em bodied by the polity: it is tan tam o u n t to saying that the body works b etter when each
legislator in o th er political a rran g em en ts designed for societies of lesser lim b looks out for its own good rather th an for the good of the whole.
virtue. Plato him self designed ju st such a second-order constitution in his S u b o rd in atin g the public to the private good is the first step to dissolution
Law s, in w hich he perm itted and encouraged m onogam y and a strictly in a state. T h e pro p er degree of wealth is good, b ut an u n restrain ed p u r­
controlled intercourse betw een the sexes. suit of m oney, as in a “ vulgar lascivious com m onw ealth dripping with
T his is also how we should u n d e rsta n d the relationship of Plato to riches ” , leads inevitably to c o rru p tio n .165 W ealth softened a state through
A ristotle, Bessarion argues. T h e two did not contradict each o th er in
principle— both Plato and A ristotle designed constitutions to unify and 163 Ibid. = Mohler 2:498: eyto pivxoq xi nXdxtav, xl ’ApioxoxeXTK 7tept xouxwv xai Sid xi
ouxajp £tpr|X£aav dvaXoytC6p.evo^, eupiaxcu Staipopa ptv, otix evavxia 8e etvai xa ux auxwv
£tpr)fXEva. Cf. Proclus, In Remp . I, 8-6-11.4, Aristode’s treatment of Plato s ideal kingship
159 See below, note 185. in Pol. III.14-18, 1284B-1288B, and his remarks at IV .11, 1295A. In the Greek version
Itt0 Bessarion’s interpretation of this doctrine as a device for obtaining unity and of the Calumniator, Bessarion writes that both Plato and Aristotle recognize f| Siatpeou; xai
avoiding egoism (tSitoai?), though a perfectly sound account of the passages he quotes tj xou iSiou ipiXia, “ divisiveness and love of one’s own ” , as the causes of harm to a com­
from the Republic may have been influenced by the similar interpretation of Proclus, In monwealth; Perotti translates, “ divisio et proprietas.” To iBtov, propnetas, also has the
Rem p. , diss. XVII. 361-368. logical-metaphysical meaning of that which is characteristic of a species, a meaning to
11,1 Calumniator IV.3 = Mohler 2:498. Although Bessarion here praises Brutus and con­ which Bessarion makes reference when he states that Plato had regard primarily to the
demns Caesar in the manner of republican humanists such as Bruni and Poggio, the whole ev axaotv, Aristotle to the part ev xioiv; Perotti omits these latter phrases.
resemblance in this case is misleading. It is not Brutus the tyrannicide Bessarion praises, 164 Like Decembrio, Bessarion took note of and accepted Plato’s belief that women
but the Brutus who put his own sons to death for the good of the commonwealth; he does were the equals of men and that men should not confine them “ intra saepta domus inex-
not attack Caesar qua tyrant, but Caesar qua someone xept xXetovo? tov xoivdiv xa i!8ia ercitatas ... quo eas molliores candidiores delicatioresque efficiantur” ; he cited Plutarch,
xociqaduevoi;. As IV. 10 makes clear (see below), Bessarion thought monarchy under a vir­ Lycurgus, and the example of the Amazons in support of this view.
tuous king the best hope of good government. 165 Bessarion’s full description of a corrupt commonwealth here ( Calumniator
"’2 Ibid. = Mohler 2:502. The philosopher-king must have an evapvEi; ev xfi cjiuxii IV .7 = Mohler 2: 538) bears some resemblance to Uberto Decembrio’s description of the
-apdoeiypa. “ inflamed city’’ (see above, p. I l l ) of discord and moral license. But I have not found
230 P A R T III ROME 231

pleasures and b rought sedition and unrest in its train. It could not coexist ny, Bessarion argued that in ancient G reece there had been good as well
with virtue. D id not the Bible teach th at it is easier for a cam el to pass as bad tyrants and that Plato had m eant to establish a good tyrant when
through the eye of a needle th an for a rich m an to en ter heaven? T h e good he advocated “ ty ra n n y ” . A good ty ran t was so rare am ong the Greeks
legislator seeks to increase virtue, not w ealth. Plato was therefore right to that this positive sense of the w ord had been d isre g a rd e d .169 But Plato
condem n the “ F o u r M e n ’’ of the Gorgias; the p opular belief that they had had been right to advocate good ty ranny, and that for two reasons. First,
saved G reece was not w rong from the v u lg ar point of view, b ut the discer­ each bad kind of constitution is genetically related to a good one which
ning person cannot say they truly saved G reece who p an d ered to the ap p e­ is its co u n terp art; dem ocracy is a corruption of “ p o lity ” , oligarchy of
tites of the m ob w ithout en couraging v irtu e .166 A nd G eorge was w rong to aristocracy, and ty ran n y of kingship. (B essarion here follows A ristotle’s
say that wealth enabled a country b etter to defend itself, for a civil m ilitia schem e of the six constitutions from Politics III, w hich he assimilates to
of patriotic citizens could defeat any m ercen ary arm y. Like M achiavelli, P la to ’s theory of constitutional developm ent in Republic V III-IX .) Since
Bessarion did not believe that m oney was the sinews of w a r.167 Plato w anted to b ring into being the best possible kind of constitution,
Against G eo rg e’s view th at equality of o p p ortunity to earn wealth he was naturally well advised to start w ith its nearest existing relative,
creates stability by giving the low er classes hope and a “ stake in the which happened to be ty ran n y . A nd, secondly, not. only is a tyrannical
system ’’, Bessarion quotes P la to ’s fam ous and u n translatable dictum that m onarchy genetically the nearest kind of constitution to ideal kingship,
“ equal shares for unequals is u n e q u a l” , i .e ., u n fa ir,168 and rightly points it is in itself the easiest kind of constitution to reform . For if one can im ­
out that A ristotle held the sam e view and so could not be used by G eorge prove the wisdom and m orals of a king— or provide him with prudent
as an authority for his egalitarian beliefs. T ru e equality is to rew ard and learned advisers— the whole kingdom can easily be reform ed.
everyone according to his w orth (xax’ a£(av). It is not inequality as such It is im possible that m en, who of their own accord neither choose and play
that causes discord, but “ un fair in e q u a lity ” — great extrem es of w ealth or the better part nor obey those with better judgm ent, should depart from
poverty, or situations in which vice flourishes and virtue goes u n ­ their vicious morals unless com pelled to do so by force and necessity—
rew arded. P la to ’s class system is ju st because it seeks to reflect and rew ard som ething which a single ruler can more easily accomplish than many
rulers. ... For it is easier to reform one [ruler] than m a n y .170*
differences of m erit. Ju stice should be based on recognition of real m oral
differences, rath er th an on some legal fiction of m oral equivalence be­ A nd the best way to reform a m onarch, according to Bessarion, is to pro­
tween all m em bers of society. A society w hich does not rew ard virtue vide him with a sound hum anistic education.
destroys virtue.
T h u s far Bessarion is m erely using the au th o rity and arg um ents of Plato
to buttress fam iliar conservative ideas ab o u t hierarchy and political 169 In the Latin but not the Greek text (Mohler 2:583) Bessarion claims that most Greek
m orality. It is hardly a m a tte r for surprise th at a h igh-ranking prelate born cities of the time of Plato were democracies, that aristocracies were rare, and monarchies
unheard of: “ Itaque magna ex parte populari imperio, quod Graeci 3T)p.oxpomav vocant.
in the Byzantine E m pire should find such ideas congenial. W hat is m ore civitates illis temporibus regebantur, rara optimatum potestas erat, nulla unius.” This in­
telling is B essarion’s fusion of P la to ’s d o ctrine of kingship w ith the con­ accurate belief is probably a back-formation from Aristotle, Pol. I V .ll, 1295A ff. The
tem porary language of signorial or courtly h u m anism . In answ er to reasons why the ancient Greeks hated tyranny according to Bessarion were that “ they
were either terrified at the iniquity of some other tyrant or they lusted after liberty, which
G eo rg e’s quotatio n of a passage w here P lato seem ed to be praising ty ran ­ men naturally desire, although they generally seek it in a rash way and some seek it in
such a way as to endanger themselves” (ibid.). As this passage is much shortened in the
Greek, it is possible that the Latin expansions are embellishments of Perotti.
any evidence, and think it most unlikely, that Bessarion was aware of the earlier work 170 Calumniator IV. 10 = Mohler 2:587 (the Latin text is here fuller): “ Neque enim fieri
of the Decembrii. potest, ut homines, qui vel suo consilio non eligunt aguntque, quae meliora sunt, vel recte
166 See Calumniator IV. 7 and IV.8. Bessarion stops short of following Plato on the in­ consulentibus non parent, aliter quam vi et summa quadam necessitate a pravis moribus
herently fraudulent nature of rhetoric, adopting instead the Aristidean solution of “ true” discedere possint, quam melius longeque facilius unus princeps quam plures potest m-
(aXr]0ivfi) and “ false” (f) picrr; xat SripaYtafixfi) rhetoric (Mohler 2: 548). ferre. Nec vero, si unus ille iuvenis aliquid vitii in se habeat, idcirco Plato errare dicendus
167 Caluminator IV. 14 = Mohler 2: 612. est, quandoquidem unum potius quam plures vitiosos desiderat. Facilius enim unus quam
168 Ibid. = Mohler 2: 604: toL; aviooti; ra fact avtaa yiyvoix' av, ei p#| zu yg ivo i roCi perpoo plures emendari potest.” This is clearly based on Laws IV, 709A-712A. For the influence
( Laws VI, 757A). Cp. Aristotle, Pot. III.9, 1279B. The opposition between George’s of this doctrine on Florentine politics in the late Quattrocento and early Cinquecento, see
“ Athenian” and Bessarion’s “ Spartan” view of the state was to become a classic one E. Wind, “ Platonic Tyranny and Renaissance Fortuna,” in De artibus opuscula XL: Essays
in early modern Europe; seej. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton, 1976), in Honor of Erwin Panofsky, ed. M. Meiss(New York, 1961), pp. 491-496; Wind, however,
chapter 3. sees this influence as being mediated by Ficino’s argumentum to Laws IV.
232 P A R T III ROME 233

And he [Plato] would give that one [ruler] some outstanding man for his (1559/65) w here they form ed the nucleus of the m odern Biblioteca
teacher, who would educate and instruct him in letters and good behavior, M a rc ia n a .174
making of him a worthy king; this man, [Plato] promised, would bring true D u rin g B essarion’s lifetim e, how ever, his library was m ore than a sim ­
felicity to his fellow citizens.171
ple collection of books. It becam e the m ost im p o rtan t center of G reek
H ere we see Bessarion m oving beyond the sim ple exempla used by early scholarship in the L atin W est. It is indeed no accident that the m a n u ­
hum anists such as B runi, V itto rin o , and G u arin o to gro u n d hum anistic scripts from B essarion’s lib rary provide the most im p o rtan t and in some
educational theory upon a m ore sophisticated philosophical basis derived cases the only witnesses to the text of m any M iddle and N eoplatonic
in great part from Plato and A ristotle. a u th o rs .175 For it was in that library that Bessarion n u rtu re d and trained
an entire generation of scholars, both em igres and W estern natives, in
* * *
G reek language and literatu re, in techniques of textual criticism , and in
T he fall of C o n stan tin o p le in 1453 was a cruel blow to Bessarion, as we G reek science and philosophy, especially Platonic philosophy. T h ere,
learn from several passionate o u tb u rsts in his letters to M ichael Apostolis too, he im bued them w ith a deep sense of the value of the G reek heritage
in 1454/5.172 N evertheless the cardinal did not abandon his efforts to and its im portance in shaping the literary and scientific culture of the
launch a crusade and solidify the u n io n betw een the R o m an and the su r­ W est— ideas which were to inform the professional study of L atin
viving G reek churches; indeed, he redoubled them . Yet as hopes for a literature from the tim e of Poliziano fo rw ard .176 Indeed, the Calumniator
crusade were dashed again an d again, and as his own quest for the papal itself should be seen not sim ply as a reply to T reb izo n d , but also as a
tiara was repeatedly fru strated , an elegiac note increasingly m akes itself defense of the G reek heritage late sumpta and as an attem p t on the part
heard w henever he m entions in his letters and other w ritings the last em ­ of Bessarion and his A cadem y to correct W estern m isconceptions about
pire of the G reeks. From the 1450s until his d eath in 1472,he increasingly the greatest of G reek philosophical system s.177*
perceives it to be his m ission, not so m uch to restore the G reek em pire As Bessarion and his circle w ere, together with M arsilio Ficino, the
in C on stan tin o p le, as to preserve an d tran sm it to the W est the spiritual chief conduits for the direct transm ission of Platonic philosophy in the
and cultural heritage of G reek civilization. T his is especially true of the early R enaissance, the attitu d e of Bessarion tow ards pagan philosophy
years after 1464, w hen ow ing to his estran g em ent from Paul II he was and C hristian theology is a m atter of some im portance. It has already
prevented from taking as active a role in ecclesiastical governm ent as been noted how in the fifteenth century new Latin translations from the
before. A lready in the letters to M ichael A postolis Bessarion rem arks that G reek Fathers, and m ore historical and contextual readings of the Latin
he had previously only collected books for his own use, b ut now, w ith the Fathers, had m ade it evident th at the theological language and principles
destruction of the great libraries of the E ast, he had m ade it his task to of the prim itive church owed far m ore to Plato than to A ristotle. But how
acquire the whole of ancient G reek literatu re, C hristian and pagan, and was this debt to be interpreted? T h e m odern solution, that C h ristian
m ake it available to students in a safe place against the day w hen the
G reeks w ould once m ore be a nation. T h a t safe place tu rn ed out to be 174 Ibid., p. 93. ,
the R epublic of V enice, w hich Bessarion chose as his second patria 175 The importance of Bessarion’s library in the textual transmission of Platonic texts
is well known to students of Platonism. In the 1524.iriventory o( Bessarion s books some
because of its pow er and political stability, its m any contacts w ith the 80 volumes (of a total of 977) were described as books of "Plato and the Platonici (see
East, and its large pop u latio n of G reek e m ig re s.173 T h u s the cathedral of Labowskv, Bessarion’s Library , pp. 68-69).
San M arco becam e the greatest repository of G reek literary culture until 175 Poliziano is often taken to be the pioneer in the study of the Greek sources of Latin
literature, but see E. Mioni, "Bessarione bibliofilo e filologo” (note 133, above) for
B essarion’s books were tran sferred to the elegant structure of Sansovino Bessarion’s seminal influence on Calderrni, Perotti and other scholars associated with his
circle. That one needed to know Greek literature in order to understand Latin was a com­
171 Ibid.: "Edam praeceptorem ei adhibet summura aliquem virum, qui eum erudiat monplace of humanist scholarship from the time of Guarino and Bruni, but few
atque instruat bonis moribus et litteris et dignum reddat regem, quern veram felicitatem humanists (with the exception perhaps of Giovanni Tortelli) had provided much in the
allaturum civitatibus pollicetur. ” Bessarion is here probably thinking of Plato’s Seventh way of practical illustrations of its value.
and Eighth Letters rather than the Republic, Statesman, or Laws, though the interpretation 177 See Calumniator III. 1 - Mohler 2:221 (Latin text fuller here): "Sed cum meum his
ot Plato's philosophical education as training in "good behavior and letters” is strained. in libris institutum non id potissimum sit, ut hominem hunc [scil. Georgium] errasse
177 Mohler 3:478-484. ostendam, quod effici sine ulla difficultate potest, sed ut gravius aliquid et philosophandi
11 See the Act ot Donation of 1468 printed in Labowskv, Bessarion’s Library, pp. studio dignius afferam viris nostra aetate sapientiae studiosis, quo eorum ingenia, quam-
147-149, esp. p. 148. vis acuta, acutiora fortassis ad iudicandum reddaniur” . Cp. also 1.1 = Mohler 2:81.
234 P A R T III ROME 235

theology was im itative of or derivative from p o p u lar versions of H elle­ C hristian ity , and we shall discuss its transform ation by Ficino m ore fully
nistic philosophies, was for obvious reasons not likely to recom m end in the next P art. H ere we need m erely point out that this belief in a secret
itself. But the A ristotelian view of the d evelopm ent of philosophical philosophico-religious wisdom hidden from the vulgar had been endorsed
thought, widely accepted by scholastics, also began to present difficulties by none of the F athers nor by the great scholastic theologians. Analogues
in light of the new perceptions. A ristotle h ad laid it dow n that philosophy could, to be sure, be found in the m edieval K abbalah an d in the Fasl al-
had been in the beginning cru d e an d o bscure, teaching often by m eans Maqal of A verroes, b ut n eith er of these texts was at all well know n in the
of poetry and m yth (as for exam ple P la to ’s m yths), b ut had developed L atin W est until the end of the fifteenth century.
in his own tim e— through his ow n in v en tio n of logic— into som ething B essarion’s own view of the history of philosophy and of P lato ’s place
m ore scientific, rigorous, sy ste m a tic .178 Y et if this w ere the case, why had in it was not, perhaps, entirely consistent and satisfactory, but it con­
the F athers chosen to express th eir teaching in the language of the tained some suggestive am biguities which w ould be exploited by later syn-
“ c ru d e ” Plato ra th e r than the scientific A ristotle?179 cretistic in terpreters of Plato. T his is not to say that Bessarion was him self
A nother possible view was given by the F athers them selves, beginning in some overt sense a svncretizer. H e states repeatedly in his Calumniator
w ith the A lexandrian Fathers of the first cen tu ry , expressed m ost fully by that neither Plato nor A ristotle was a C h ristian , and t-hat their doctrines
Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evangelica, an d know n to L atin readers were at m any points co n trary to (not contradictory of) C hristian revela­
especially th ro u g h A ugustine an d L a c ta n tiu s .180 W e have already seen tio n .181 In Book III he rejects repeatedly G eo rg e’s attem pts to assimilate
B runi m ake use of it in his preface to the Phaedo. A ccording to Eusebius A ristotelian doctrines to C hristian ity , and quotes the A ristotelian com ­
the G reek philosophers had stolen th e ir teachings from the H ebrew p ro ­ m entaries of A quinas and o ther scholastics to prove that such attem pts at
phets; Plato for instance had heard M oses w hen he had visited Egypt and finding revealed C hristian doctrines in A ristotle were wholly illegitimate:
had passed off the obscure w isdom he h ad im bibed from the H ebrew s as 6 eva\>xio<; aTCoBtSooat xq> ’Apta-coxeXei xa xfj<; rijjiexepai; Tuaxeax; iSta ( I I I .22).
his own. G od had p erm itted this im p o stu re because he w ished to prepare G eo rg e’s attem pts to break dow n the b arriers betw een A ristotle and
the G reek-speaking oikumene for C h ristia n ity th ro u g h philosophy, ju st as C hristian ity threaten to m ake revelation unnecessary: “ he m akes A risto­
he had p rep ared the Jew s th ro u g h the teachings of the prophets. W ith the tle, a pagan and infidel, into an apostle” (III. 19). Sim ilarly, in a num ber
com ing ol the tru e revelation in C h rist, the need for these obscure forms of instances Bessarion takes pains to distance him self from unorthodox
of religious w isdom had passed, b u t the O ld T e stam en t and the w ritings Platonic doctrines. H e forswears explicitly P lato ’s doctrines of the preex­
of the philosophers m ight still be o f use educationally, to prepare C h ris­ istence of the soul, polytheism (7iXf|0ou(; Geoxrixoov), and, as we have seen,
tian youth for the full glories of the N ew T e sta m e n t, so long as the pagan m arital co m m u n ism ;182 he adm its that Plato spoke of the T rin ity in a way
w ritings were carefully p ru n ed o f all d a n g ero u s and m isleading ideas. “ far in ferio r” (tioXu fjxxcov) to that of the C atholic religion. Plato had been
W e have already described briefly a th ird R enaissance version of the illum inated “ by the n atu ral light of reaso n ” alone, and only later had
history of philosophy, nam ely P le th o ’s fam ous belief in an ancient “ the dem iurge and d esp o t” of the universe sent his Son to reveal the truth
theology w hich was superio r both to an cien t paganism and to popular to us m ore clearly .183 Plato had indeed realized the need for faith, and

178 This view is implict in many works of Aristotle; see H. F. Cherniss, Aristotle’s
Criticism of Plato and the Academy, 2nd edn. (New York, 1962); idem, Aristotle’s Criticism 181 For instance at II. 1 = Mohler 2:80: 9 ap.£v 8e xaGxa ou IlXdxtova paXXov ’AptaxoxEXouc;
of Presocratic Philosophy (Baltimore, M D, 1935; repr. 1964, 1971). Aristotle’s view of •cfj exxXrfaia EvnroioGvxEi; ou8e 8ia xouxo ’Apiaxox£Xr|v yEtpoJ vopuCovxEi;- aXXoxpio? yap ExdxEpos
philosophical history was nonetheless frequently accepted in the Renaissance, for exam­ xai jtoppw xfji; fffXEXEpa? auXfji; xai co<; xw ysvct, ouxco xai xfj Op-rfaxEia "EXXrfvEi; afitpat, xxX.
ple by John Argyropoulos (see below, p. 350). For Filelfo’s attempt to combine an idea 182 Ibid., II.3 = Mohler 2:83 ff.
of philosophical progress with a kind of ancient theology, see above, p. 93. 183 Ibid., II.5 = Mohler 2:102: (Latin text radically shortened) xt? yap oux oiBe IlXaxcova
179 For George of Trebizond’s historical solution to this problem, see below, p. 243f.; (jlt) Xptaxtavov ysyovEvai xai EJtOfi.£va><; (XT) 8etv auxa> xax’ i'xvo<; EJiEoDat xov y£ Xpiaxtavov Etvai
the obvious solution here was to understand Aristotle as platonically as possible. opoXoyoGvxa; xapaypaxa yap xtva xai aoppoXa xai oiov v/vr] xfj? fipexEpac; suaEpEiap ev xov;
180 See H. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford, 1966). nXdxwvop Xoyoo; sopiaxEaflat 6fi.oXoyoop.Ev xai cpoaixw xoo voG cpaixi £XXaucp0Evxo<;, d fiexa xaGxa
George of Trebizond produced the first Latin translation of Eusebius (see above, p. 192 6 Srffjuoupyoi; xai Seotcoxtii; xfj xoG ayaTciyxoG 6ioG EvavOpcottfiaEi xe xai 8i3aaxaXia PiwpOaxJE xe
n.) at Rome in 1448; see Monfasani, George of Trebizond, pp. 72-73; Trapezuntiana, pp. xai EXEXEicoaaxo xai aacpEaxspov a7C£xdXoc!*E. The earlier version of the Greek cited in
721-726. For the knowledge of Origen in the Renaissance, see E. Wind, “ The Revival Mohler’s apparatus has an interesting variant reading of povqj to be taken with 9 <oxt, in­
ol Origen,’’ in Studies m Art and Literature for Belle da Costa Greene, ed. D. Miner (Princeton. dicating perhaps that Bessarion in his later redaction lelt less certain that the sources of
1954), pp. 412-424. Plato’s knowledge were purely natural.
 236 P A R T III ROME 237

placed it first am ong the v irtu e s .184 B essarion even endorses the Eusebian criticism . G eorge em ploys the most sophisticated types of historical and
notions that the In carn atio n had b ro u g h t a radically new clarity of faith philological m ethod available in his day, an d draw s on a far w ider range
and m o ra ls,185 and that P lato had derived his theology from the O ld of sources th an hum anist interpreters of Plato had hitherto used. H e is,
T estam en t S c rip tu re s.186 m oreover, a highly effective controversialist— far m ore effective, to tell
Yet despite B essarion’s in ten tio n to draw a firm line betw een n atural the tru th , than the turgid and repetitious Bessarion. H e deploys his m at­
and dogm atic theology, he can n o t wholly resist the tem p tatio n to divinize ter clearly per species', he u n derstands how to throw the g reater argum ents
Plato and his teaching. O r p erhaps one should say th at, given the il- into high relief while condensing the lesser; he provides variety and
lum inationist concept of reason with w hich Bessarion was w orking, anv refreshing contrasts; and he builds his case carefully so that his reader is
tru th arrived at “ by the n atu ral light of re a so n ” is eo ipso a kind of divine led by degrees from the m ore reasonable and better docum ented com ­
revelation. T h e absence of a clear separatio n betw een h u m an and divine plaints of the first book to the bold prophetic denunciations of the last.
nous, such as existed in A risto tle’s psychology, tended to u n d ercut Indeed, had G eo rg e’s controversy with Bessarion been m erely a m atter
T hom istic-style distinctions betw een a kind of tru th arrived at by natu ral of rhetoric, he m ight well have carried off the prize of victory. But it was
reason and a kind arrived at by revelation. In any case Bessarion not. T o arrive at a true estim ate of P lato ’s life and thought required as
repeatedly pauses in w on d er at the closeness of Platonic doctrine to well a respect for the scholarly virtues, a high degree of philosophical
C hristianity; repeatedly he suggests that this closeness is as though Plato pen etratio n , and a m odicum at least of historical sym pathy. O f these
had been inspired by G od o r som e d iv in ity .187 Bessarion u nderstands the qualities G eorge was robbed by his fanaticism and his neurotic hatred ol
relationship of Plato to the divine tru th s o f the gospel as that of “ certain rivals and “ p ersecutors” . Instead he m ixed his genuine insights with the
im prints and sym bols and reflections as it were of o u r fa ith ” .188 Such is base ore of prophetic apriorism ; he succeeded in discovering hitherto
the proxim ity of Plato to the faith that his philosophy can be used to lead neglected sides of Plato only to vitiate his insights by irresponsible m is­
a m an to “ the m ore perfect state of o u r relig io n ” ; if anyone through e r­ qu o tatio n and distortion.
ror betake him self from an ed ucation in sacred letters to P la to ’s teaching, T h e Comparatio provides, in effect, a com pendium of the entire tradi­
the fault is his own, not P la to ’s .189 tion of W estern anti-P latonism from A ristotle to L eonardo B ru n i,190 but
G eorge at the sam e tim e transm utes that trad itio n by understanding it
in light of his own prophetic vision of Platonic philosophy as the tool of
5. Bessarion vs. Trebizond
A n tic h rist.191 As G eorge rem arks, he does not follow the usual p attern ol
G eorge of T re b iz o n d ’s Comparatio has an excellent claim to rank am ong comparatio literatu re in assigning first and second places to Plato or A risto­
the most rem arkable m ixtures of learn in g and lunacy ever penned. In tle, but ra th e r argues that A ristotle should be thought the greatest
some respects, the work is a d istinguished exam ple of advanced hum anist philosophical benefactor of the h um an race, Plato its worst nemesis
(III. 1). T his latter fact, says G eorge, has h ith erto gone unrecognized for
184 Ibid., II.5 = Mohler 2:104-106. For Bessarion’s use of Proclus here, see App. 13. two reasons. First, Plato has not been available in L atin until recently;
185 Ibid., IV.3 = Mohler 2:494. Bessarion here uses this notion to excuse Plato for his
doctrine of marital communism.
180 Ibid., III.8 = Mohler 2:244: ou pfjv aXXa xai 'Euaepio? 6 notp^t'Xou, aocpdi; a vfjp xai 190 George’s debt to Bruni’s brief comparatio in the Vita Anstotelis (above, p. 64f.) is evi­
rtoAutatojp, ev xc h ? ~e.pt tfj? EuayveXtxf)? npottapaaxsufji; auxou Xoyot? paxpov jrepl nXaxtovo? dent throughout the Comparatio; there are even a number of verbal parallels, e g., at 1.2
"otoupevcx; Xoyov, rcaaav ayeSov xf]v 7tXaxamxT]v GeoXoylav ex tfjs 9ela<; ypacpiji; eiXfjpSai Xoyou; where George says that there is no one “ cui plus quam Aristoteli genus humanum
Setxvuatv oux euxaxa?povr|xoi(;. debeat,” which may be compared to Bruni’s “ Aristoteli vero permultum debet
187 For example at II.8 = Mohler 2:153 ev <J>ai8po) EcaxpaxTii; evGouaiaCcov humanum genus” (Schriften, pp. 45-46). At 1.9 George replies to Pletho s criticism of the
"quemadmodum Socrates in Phaedro quasi numine quodam, ut Plato inquit, afflatus Aristotelian doctrine of the mean by borrowing from a letter of Bruni to Lauro Quirini
eloquitur; III. 16 = Mohler 2:298 aoxr] yap ectxiv exeivt] f| EvGeop xai £7raivex7| pavla fj oi (Ep. IX.iii, ed. Mehus = The Humanism of Leonardo Brum, p. 293f.) For George’s debt to
evGouatcjvxei; xateyovtai, oi rrveupaxi Getco xivoupevot xa Xoytapoi? avGoanrivou; ayvosaxa xtLv Bruni in general, see Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 42. Bessarion recognizes the influ­
’.epcoxepojv xai Getoxepcov 7tpaypaxojv GeoGev xoi? av0pd>?xoi<; avaxaXunxouaiv; IV.2 = Mohler ence of Bruni on George’s misunderstanding of Aristotle’s use of the term tagalhon at
2:481 (alter pointing out that Plato is speaking through the mouth of Socrates) “ ...quo Calumniator III. 19 = Mohler 2:317; “ our John Argyropoulos” , Bessarion argues, gave a
pacto do amore [in eius Convivio | quasi numine quodam divino afflatus loquatur more correct interpretation. For the early history of this controversy and its significance
animadvertite. see above, pp. 60 and 122.
188 See note 183 above. 191 For the text of the Comparatio used here, see above, note 3. Numbers in parentheses
Kl'’ Ibid., II.5 = Mohler 2:107. in the text above indicate the book and chapter numbers of the printed edition.
238 P A R T III ROME 239

“ now, how ever, since m any of his volum es have been tran slated into the any art or science (1.9). O f logic, the philosopher’s chief w eapon, he was
R o m an tongue, it will be a sim ple m a tte r to establish in the eyes of learn ­ woefully ignorant, like a soldier able to m arch and pitch cam p, but
ed m en his d epravity and ignorance, in com parison w ith A risto tle.” 192 unable to fight; it was no surprise that Laws X contradicted the Timaeus
Secondly, the Platonic wolves have hid d en their dan g ero u s vices and on the natu re of the soul (III. 14, ad fin .). P lato ’s physical doctrines
heresies u n d e r the clothing of C h ristian sheep, hoping to co rru p t the resem bled the belching of a crapulous rustic; w hatever doctrines were not
faithful from w ith in .193 It is G e o rg e ’s m ission to expose the im posture. wholly erroneous were derivative, such as his doctrine of the im m ortality
G eorge divides his work into three books, dealing severally w ith the of the soul, which he had stolen from the poets. Even on subjects where
three broad grounds upon w hich A ristotle should be thought superior to Plato was generally believed to be an authority his reputation was wholly
Plato. In the first book it is m ain tain ed th at A ristotle provides far m ore unm erited. H e co ntributed no system atic treatise to any of the four
of useful learn in g th an Plato; that, indeed, P lato ’s learn in g , because of branches of m athem atics, and not one of the portentous rem arks on
its confused and enigm atic p resen tatio n , is either useless or fraudulent. n u m b er m ade in his dialogues am ounts to so m uch as the sim plest dem ­
Plato, he argues, is no m ore th an a p ractitio n er of the “ C retan a r t” ,194 o n stration (1.6). So far was he from und erstan d in g m etaphysics that he
a m ou n teb an k who m em orizes learned term s of art and spouts them to was not even capable of distinguishing it from physics, nor did he
the v ulgar for pay (1.6). H is v au n ted style is in fact b oring, loquacious, establish fully or correctly any first principles (1.7). His theory of ideas
and em pty; his use of fables and enigm as is a device to conceal his ig­ was an unnecessary duplication of the phenom enal w orld, and sprang
norance (1.5). U nlike A ristotle, he provides no clear dem onstrations from a logical confusion betw een definitions and cau ses.195 H is moral
from first principles, no system atic treatm en t of any subject; his dialogic philosophy, finally, was equally useless, a scattering of sententiae rather
style confuses all the disciplines to gether and is therefore worse than than a m ethodical treatm en t of the science of correct behavior (1.9).
useless for the student (1.4). M oreo v er, P lato had no real know ledge of Book II is devoted to proving, against Pletho, that Plato is not only
m uch further from C h ristian doctrine th an A ristotle, b ut even that
P la to ’s doctrines are wholly irreconcilable with the tru th s of the faith.
192 Comparatio 1.2: “ Id latina oratione numquam ferme alias (Plato enim latinus non U nlike A ristotle, w hom G eorge represents as a strict m onotheist, Plato
erat) commode fieri potuit; nunc vero, quoniam multa eius in Romanam sunt linguam
traducta volumina, facillimum nobis erit pravitatem eius et ignorantiam, si ad believed in the existence of m any gods and m ade provision in his Laws
Aristotelem comparas, prae oculis doctorum hominum constituere. ” George was no for idolatrous sacrifices to th e m .196 His doctrine of low er gods fu rth er­
doubt thinking primarily of his own translations. Bessarion rejects the early fifteenth- m ore tended to reduce the infinite distance between creator and creature
century translations as incompetent at Calumniator II.3 ( = Mohler 2:87) and at 1.1
( = Mohler 2:9). At IV.2 ( = Mohler 2:448; in the Greek, but not the Latin text) he im­ ( I I .2). Plato also encouraged dem on-w orship, sorcery, and illicit m agical
plicitly criticises Brum’s translation of the Phaedrus for bowdlerizing Plato’s account of rites (III. 18). Platonic love was tan tam o u n t to dem on w orship;197
love, which Bessarion interprets as “ Platonic love’’ (see, below, p. 259): avdtyxT] yap Platonic theology was nothing m ore than “ gentile ig n o ran ce” and the
toutcov [XTiSapfi ev pipXcp [xtl> OatSpcu] 7tapa Aaxtvoi<;, axs pr|3’ ippriveupevcuv aoxoi?, o(kv av
ati-ca aaipeaxEpov yvotev, paxpoxtoa evrauBa IxOetvai reppayta. figmenta poetarum tricked out w ith factitious philosophical argum ents.
193 Plato’s thefts from Moses and the Hebrews Trebizond probably took from T u rn in g Pletho on his head, G eorge m aintains that P la to ’s theology was
Eusebius, but he went beyond Eusebius, of course, in seeing this as part of a Platonist in fact copied in toto from the crudest of pagan superstitions. P lato ’s
conspiracy. It is interesting that George’s delusion leads him to discover the close verbal
parallels between Proclus and pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, a discovery not made
m etaphysical doctrines w ere, m oreover, the fountainhead of all heresies.
by rmodern philologists until the later nineteenth century (see E. R. Dodds, ed.: Proclus, H e believed in the eternal existence of prim e m atter, show ing him self to
The Elements of Theology, 2nd edn. [Oxford, 1963], p. xxvii). George writes (II.4): “ Sed
inter alios Proculus maxime atque Numenius, quorum alter tres trinitates et novem or-
dines in divinis Platonem posuisse conatus ostendere, ipsa re manifestum fecit Areopagite 195 These criticism are derived from Aristotle, Metaphysics A.9; George himself men­
Dionisii viri omnino celestis libros furto sibi arrogasse, praesertim cum saepius eisdem tions the Ethica Nicomachea, [1.6].
vocabulis abstractis atque inusitatis quibus etiam Dyonisius utitur." George of course reversed 196 Comparatio II.2; cp. Eusebius, Praep. evang. XIII. 14 (692A).
the correct order ol the influence. His use of the correspondence between the two authors 197 To argue this point George produces (II.2, ad fin .) a perversio of Symp. 202D 8f.
to argue for the derivative nature of Platonism may be one reason why Theodore Gaza which begins, “ ‘Quid igitur,’ Socrates ad Diotimam inquit, ‘cupido [”Epa><;] est
and Valla, both clients of Bessarion, were led to expose the pseudo-Dionysius as a demonne?’ ‘Et magnus quidem,’ inquit Diotima — ’’ George’s title tor the Symp. is De
forgery. On Gaza’s part in the exposure of the pseudo-Dionysius, see J. Monfasani. cupidine. George later (III.2) misquotes Aristophanes’ speech on the hermaphrodite (189E
“ Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in mid-Quattrocento Rome,’’ in Supplemenlum f.), and uses it to represent Plato as having declared that only those male couples will
Festivum, pp. 189-219. be blessed whom some god has attached permanently to each other in such fashion that
194 I.e., lying; see Titus 1:12. their sexual pleasure will never be diminished.
24P P A R T III ROME 241

be in effect a M an ich ean who held to two ultim ate cosm ic principles of the Laws to arg u in g ineptly for drunkenness as a tool of m oral educa­
gopd and evil ( I I .8). Pletho had him self suggested that P lato was a deter- tio n .201 W orst of all, P la to ’s vanity and self-conceit had been so colossal
m inist and had adm itted that Plato believed in the extradeical existence that he had com e in tim e to think of him self as a god ( I I I .8, 9).
of the eternal Ideas (11.15). G eorge falls gleefully upon these adm issions, T o the m o dern read er who knows som ething of P lato ’s thought
adding (contradictorily) that Plato had also taught a doctrine of subor- G eo rg e’s account of it can hardly seem other than perversely u n b al­
dinationism in the G odhead, which (says G eorge) was the source of the anced, narrow ly unsym pathetic, incom plete, and unreliable. W e m ust
A rian and E u n o m ian heresies (11.16). Plato has been praised for believ­ rem em ber, how ever, that it m ay not have seem ed so to m any of G eo rg e’s
ing in the im m ortality of the soul, but this doctrine was hardly original contem poraries. G eorge was able to reduce the size of P la to ’s reputation
with him ; P la to ’s only co n trib u tio n was to infect the dogm a w ith heresies at least in p art because of the standards he chose to m easure it by, stan ­
(I I .8). T h u s Plato, by arg u in g that all soul was im m ortal, placed the dards w hich m any of his readers would readily have accepted as valid.
hum an souls on the level of pigs, w orm s and beetles; he believed in pal­ M ost im p o rtan t for G eorge was w hether Plato agreed w ith the C hristian
ingenesis and the tran sm ig ratio n of souls into the bodies of beasts; he faith. T h is was, of course, an equally im p o rtan t canon for m ost other fif­
even im ported a m aterialistic strain into the doctrine of im m ortality by teen th -cen tu ry in terp reters of Plato, but while theologians like Bessarion
describing the soul as a vehiculum ( I I .9 ) .198 and Ficino w ere willing to rein terpret Platonic doctrines in C hristian
In the third and last book G eorge unleashed the full violence of his senses, or even to find new Platonic m eanings in the C atholic creeds,
hatred. D raw ing largely on the Republic and on his own translation of the T reb izo n d insisted that the text of the dialogues, understood in a crudely
Law s, he set out to prove that Plato was a nosegay of all the vices. His literal sense, should be m easured against the dogm as of the church ac­
great them e was that Plato, in both his life and his teachings, had been cording to the m eanings given them by traditional scholastic exegesis.
consistently contra naturam. In the first place, Plato had done everything
For surely that man should be considered and declared the true philosopher
he could to encourage sexual depravity. P ederasty he had both practiced who sticks closest to the truth, and the man who departs from truth the fur­
him self and preached to others, and he had tried to d istu rb the norm al thest is the one who is the more remote from philosophy. ... But the Truth
bonds of m atrim o n y by advocating (in the Republic) the universal p ro ­ shone forth in the Christian religion through the preaching of our Lord
stitution of the female sex ( I I I .3). A ristotle, by contrast, h ad been an o u t­ Jesus Christ and his apostles. Hence the [philosopher] who agrees more
standing h u sb and and father and strictly heterosexual; G eorge w ent into with Christian piety is as far as I am concerned the more learned and truer
philosopher; the one who is further distant from this piety, that is, from the
rap tu res describing the b eauty of his wife H erp y llis.199 Plato had also dogmas of the Church, is, to the degree that he departs from it, the more
been a dirty old m an ( “ O pessim e turn o m n iu m libidinosissim e senex!” ) closely akin to the Author of Lies and the more remote from [true] phi­
who had w anted m en and w om en to take exercise together naked (see losophy.202
Rep. 452B) in o rd e r to m ake them too effem inate for m ilitary service
A n o th er im p o rtan t m easure for G eorge was the degree to which Plato
(III. 10). T h is was in tu rn b u t a sign of P la to ’s u n n a tu ra l hatred for his
had provided a clear, system atic exposition of bodies of knowledge from
own country, exem plified fu rth er by his critical tre a tm e n t of the F our
first principles to their m inutest consequences. A third was “ usefulness” ,
M en of A thens in the Gorgias.200 P lato had been, m oreover, an advocate
that is to say, the degree to which the behavior and m ores depicted in
of continual in eb riatio n ( I I I .8), and had devoted the first two books of

198 This seems to be a reference to the doctrine of the astral body in Proclus; see D. 201 George of course is not the only reader mystified by the first two books of the Laws.
P. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella (London, 1958), pp. 3-18, W. K. C. Guthrie (q.v) writes (5: 382) that he was himself discouraged from studying the
38-40. Laws for a long time “ by the obstacle which Plato himself has put in our way: the lengthy
199 In order to protect Aristotle from the obvious countercharge, George admits that and humourless disquisitions in the first two books on the moral and educational advan­
Aristotle had had a concubine, but argues that polygamy is not unnatural, whereas the tages of drinking-parties.’’
destruction of marriage contemplated by Plato is (III.3). What is more surprising is 202 Comparatio II. 1: “ Nam is verus profecto phylosophus haberi predicarique debet,
George’s tacit admission, in the previous chapter, that homosexuality was rife in ancient qui veritati magis adhereat, is alienior a philosophia qui longius a veritate aberret. ...
Greece, a fact that classical philologists before the twentieth century have often tended Sed veritas in Christiana religione per domini nostri I. C. et apostolorum suorum praedi-
to deny or ignore. Bessarion, in his reply to George on this point ( Calumniator IV. cationem perluxit. Quare qui christianae pietati magis congruit, is mihi philosophus
2 = Ylohler 2:458), criticises him for representing the ancients in this fashion co<; -cootou eruditior atque verior; qui ab hac pietate, id est a dogmatibus ecclesiae, remotior fit,
tote toG puiapLaTCK; reap’ ’A0T]vaioii; xpa-coGvcoc. See also note 245, below. quanto longius abest, tanto mendaciorum authori coniunctior et a philosophia est
200 See above, p. 168. alienior.
242 P A R T III ROME 243

P la to ’s dialogues could be im itated by students w ithout h arm to their any source other than the very books in question—we have brought under
m oral and religious form ation. consideration, not all their writings, but “randomly chosen bits which we
T h a t these religious and pedagogic m easures of philosophical ex­ believe to be sufficient [for the purpose].203
cellence were widely accepted in G e o rg e ’s day has already been am ply H e had also m ade a sophisticated historical arg u m en t, based on the for-
dem onstrated in the earlier p arts o f this study. W e have seen Pier C an- tuna of the A ristotelian text, to explain why the F athers of the C hurch
dido D ecem brio attem p tin g to tran sfo rm P lato ’s Republic into a seem ed to prefer Plato to A ristotle:
system atic treatise, and B runi and the rest m aking Plato into a paragon
[We need not regard the opinion of the Fathers about the respective merits
of wisdom, piety and virtue. T h e re is no dou bt that a belief in the ex­
of Plato and Aristotle] especially since in early times they could not fully
em plary character of classical a n tiq u ity and in the value of system and understand Aristotle, since his books were not published until very late (ex­
m ethod were both vital elem ents in the cu ltu ral politics of the hum anists. cept for his books on moral philosophy), [that is, not] before the time of the
Yet up to the m iddle of the fifteenth centu ry the hum anist interpreters commentator Alexander [Aphrodisiensis], who evidently flourished in the
of Plato had (for the m ost p art) successfully concealed P la to ’s shortcom ­ reign of Antoninus. Also, they could not understand him because of the
sublime difficulty of his subject matter, which cannot be grasped unless
ings as a model and teacher. W h at is, then, significant about G eo rg e’s
someone has carefully examined all his extant volumes on the subject.
criticism is his readiness to tu rn the w eapons of hum anist herm eneutics Aristotle being thus for these reasons badly understood, and Plato being
against an ancient authority: to destroy an idol, as it w ere, of his own familiar to all because of his verbal trappings and booming diction, it was
religion. M ere slander m ight have been ignored. G eorge, however, had difficult for them [the Church Fathers] not to come to an incorrect judg­
done more th an that: he had p resen ted a critical challenge which im plicit­ ment. For they could not grant leadership in philosophy to a man they had
not thoroughly studied, or whom they had not fully understood even if they
ly threatened the whole h u m an ist en terp rise. W hat would be left of the
had read him.204*
h u m a n ists’ claim s that the ancients w ere ideal teachers and m odels of
conduct if the greatest of ancient philosophers should prove to be a In trying to prove that A ristotle had indeed believed in creatio ex nihilo,
heretical m ountebank and pederast? G eorge had used the sophisticated arg u m en t that A ristotle could not have
For G eorge, w hatever the distortions, om issions, and inaccuracies of expressed the concept of creation in G reek since the G reeks all believed
his portrait of P lato ’s life and w orks, h ad succeeded in m aking a n u m b er in the eternity of the w orld; therefore it was useless to dem and explicit
of telling points which literal-m inded readers would find difficult to deny. proofs from his works of his belief in creation. G od m ay have inspired
It was after all perfectly tru e that P lato was not an easy au th o r to teach, A ristotle with a belief in the T rin ity and creation (as G eorge believed),
that his doctrines were in m any ways at variance with C h ristian ity , and
that he was, at the very least, to leran t of the conventions of G reek 203 Ibid., 1.2: “ Quippe qui iam Platonem non aliunde, sed a seipsis versos legendi
hom osexuality and o ther social practices o f his time which were difficult libros inducti aspernentur atque oderint.” 1.6: “ Nam sciueritne uterque, an nesciuerit,
et uter praestantior hac in re fuerit, non aliunde quam e scriptis utriusque intelligere
to square w ith traditional C h ristia n m orality. T hese points G eorge had possumus.’’ III. 1: “ Sed quoniam utriusque vitam e scriptis suis maxime inspiciendam
been able to establish w ith a good deal of plausibility, using the best [putamus om. ed. ]— nec enim aliunde possumus, nec si possemus, aliis deberemus credere
hum anist m ethods available— m ethods th at previous critics of Plato had magis quam eis ipsis quibus de [dr] agitur— , e libris eorum non omnia sed quae sutficere
credimus carptim et ut contigerit in medium adducemus.”
not been able to em ploy. G eorge h ad, for instance, insisted repeatedly on 204 Ibid., II. 1: “ ... presertim cum priscis temporibus Aristotelem, quia tardius in
the great hum anistic principle of ad Jontes— the prim acy of original texts lucem libri sui pervenerunt, nec subintelligi, praeter eos quos de moribus scripserat, ante
over subsequent in terp retatio n in establishing historical facts. Alexandri commentatoris tempora potuerunt, quern Antonino Romanis imperante
floruisse constat, turn propter altitudinem rerum quae percipi posse non videntur nisi
[Because of the new Latin translations of Plato the learned are now able to quis omnia volumina quae de ipsis feruntur diiigenter viderit. Aristotele igitur his de
see for themselves Plato’s depravity] so that now those who despise and hate causis parum recte intellecto, Platone autem propter ornatum verborum dicendique
Plato may be led to do so from no other source than from reading the books bombum omnibus familiari, difficile ipsis fuerit non perperam iudicare. Non enim
translated by themselves. ... [It is said that Plato knew more mathematics poterant ei principatum in philosophia conferre, quern aut ne perlegerunt quidem aut,
si legerunt, minus integre intellexerunt.’’ For the sources of these views in Plutarch,
than Aristotle, but] whether both of them knew [maths] or not, and which
Cicero, Strabo and Alexander, see I. Duering, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition
of them was the more outstanding in this subject we cannot estimate from (Goeteborg, 1957), p. 413 ff. See also Augustine, De util. cred. VI. 13. Alexander’s actual
any source other than the writings of both of them. ... But since we believe floruit is ca. 198-213. This passage of the Comparatio seems to have been known to
that the life of both [philosophers] should be adjudged primarily on the Savonarola: cp. his remarks about patristic ignorance ol Aristotle in Prediche su Ezechiele,
basis of their writings—for we cannot, and if we could, we should not, trust ed. R. Ridolfi (Rome, 1955), 1: 329.
 244 P A R T III ROME 245

but tlhis did not m ean that A ristotle was capable of changing the precisely the sam e move w ith A ristotle, w ith far g reater im plausibility.207
philosophical discourse o f his tim e so radically that he was able to express In addition to intentional d istortion, m isq u o tatio n , and wild extrapola­
his u pique beliefs.205 A nd G eorge had fu rth e r shown his kinship w ith the tions from the texts, G eorge is also given to scoring em pty rhetorical
hum anists o f the m id -Q u attro cen to by rejecting the principle that one points and to playing with n u m b e r m ysticism . H e m akes no truly serious
should put au th o rity before historical evidence. Like P ier C andido attem p t to u n d erstan d precisely w hat Plato was saying or why he was
D ecem brio, he distinguishes betw een the au th o rity of the F athers in m a t­ saying it. H is tendencies in these directions no d o u b t did m uch to u n d er­
ters of faith, and their au th o rity in m atters of historical fact; but unlike m ine the credibility of his arg u m en ts, even before the appearance of the
D ecem brio, he w ants to strip the F athers of their au th o rity as historians In calumniatorem Platoms. But there can be little question that G eo rg e’s
not to protect, but to destroy Plato: treatise provided a serious challenge to those who w ished to interpret
Plato in a favorable sense. G eorge had laid out in the sharpest possible
Everyone who cares about the truth will confess that the doctors of the
Church had the help of divine grace in speaking about matters pertaining fashion the contradictions subsisting betw een the Platonic texts and the
to the establishment of the Church and about things necessary to salvation, con tem p o rary context; he had, by exposing a core of uncom fortable
but concerning matters which do not refer to or produce the salvation of tru th s about P lato and his w orks, th reaten ed to m ake a significant part
souls, they spoke merely as human beings. ...If then it is inquired whether of the classical past unusable by his own present. H is argum ents and
Aristotle or Plato is more experienced, learned or closer to the truth, and evidences, if they were to be effectively answ ered, dem an d ed that the
some doctors of the Church have plumped for one or the other, I am not
compelled to follow their authority here any more than in [geometry], ... L atin W est find for itself a different approach to the in terp retatio n of the
[Moreover, there were historical reasons why the Fathers were unfamiliar P latonic texts. T h e discovery, or recovery, ol ju st such an approach was
with Aristotle’s works]; I may add that this discussion of ours should be car­ to be the w ork of C ard in al Bessarion.
ried out not on the basis of authorities, who are often deceived, but on the
basis of the facts themselves.206 * * *

O n e m ust not paint the picture too glowingly. G e o rg e ’s prophetic In com posing his In calumniatorem Platoms, C ard in al Bessarion faced what
license encouraged in him a tendency to irresponsible apriori in te rp re ta ­ was in some ways a form idable task. G eorge of T re b iz o n d ’s Comparatio
tion, especially w hen it cam e to tracin g the history of the Platonist con­ had b ro u g h t to a crisis all the chief issues that had dogged the partisans
spiracy or to Finding trinities in A ristotle. Indeed, if Pletho had suggested of P lato th ro u g h o u t the fifteenth century; he had p ut fresh w eapons into
the existence of an ancient theology of P latonism , G eorge m ade alm ost the hands of those w ith a vested interest in m ain tain in g the A ristotelian
corpus as the centerpiece of arts train in g in universities. Bessarion m ight,
to be sure, have taken a narrow view of his com m ission. It would have
205 (bid., II.5: ‘‘Dictum autem nunc su m < im > u s quod Aristoteles a nihilo creata been easy enough, given the m an y erro rs and ineptitudes in G eorge s
esse a summo Deo universa censuit, idque quoniam permaxima res erat et philosophan-
tibus illo tempore incredibilis, non expresse ullo in loco dictum ... Creare, facere,
w ork, sim ply to have discredited the Comparatio on philosophical and
generare. gignere, producere, ceteraque huiusmodi uerba omnia ex materie potentia pro- scholarly grounds. A nd indeed Bessarion did not shrink from cataloging
dire aliquid apud veteres significabant. Nam cum productio ex nihilo simpliciter esset illis in tedious detail G eo rg e’s follies and ignorance. But Bessarion decided
ignota, non potuit ignote rei uerbum aliquod accommodari. Sed doctores ecclesiae re
at the sam e tim e to take a b ro ad er view of his task. H e knew full well
percepta creandi uerbum aliquando post Constantini principis piissimi tempora in earn
potestatem acceperunt. Testatur id Nicene synodi svmbolum in quo factor omnium, non of the prejudice of W estern scholastics in favor of A ristotle, and he knew
creator, deus predicatur. Testatur Lactantius qui grecos mutatus libellum de opificio also that P lato had enco u n tered criticism from m any q u arters in the
scripsit hominis. Nam cum graeci quoque ante Constantini tempora uerbum huic rei
L atin W est d u rin g the two previous centuries. T h ere is evidence that
proprium nullum accommodarent, rei postea magnitudine admoniti demiurgiae nomen
ei attribuerunt. Id latine opificium dicitur.” Bessarion and his few Platonic followers felt them selves to be an isolated
-’Uh Ibid., II. 1: “ Omnes, si veritatis sibi cura est. falsum esse negabunt doctores ec­ and powerless group in a pred o m in an tly A ristotelian c u ltu re .208 And
clesiae non absque gratia de iis esse locutos rebus quae ad stabiliendam ecclesiam perti­
nent et ad salutem necessariae sunt; de iis vero quae saluti animorum non conferunt nec
efliciunt sicut homines solum locutos esse. ... Si ergo etiam uter peritior, doctior, veritati- 207 See App. 14.
que affinior Plato an Aristoteles queritur, et doctorum ecclesiae aliqui hunc aut ilium ex- 208 por instance, see Calumniator II. 11 = Mohler 2:199, where Bessarion says that
istimcnt, non ntagis in hoc quam in superioribus authoritatem eorum impellar sequi. ... George has relied on criticisms of Plato made by “ certain Latin commentators ot our
Aeeedit quod non authoritatibus quae res fallere plerunque potest, sed rebus ipsis faciun- day” . George s argument for the inhnite distance of creator from creature (and hence
(la haec est nobis eollatio.” the equality of creatures to each other) is probably drawn (rom his teacher Paul ot
246 P A R T III ROME 247

with the spreading knowledge of G reek an d the developm ent of a m ore m aster, A ristotle the student; Plato was theios, A ristotle m erely daimonios.
historical style o f in terp retatio n , the chances o f “ m isu n d erstan d in g s” of So by em phasizing the concord of Plato and A ristotle, Bessarion could
Plato such as G eo rg e’s were increasing. So the Calumniator had to be isolate G eorge rhetorically from the great and the good of antiquity:
m ore than a sim ple correcting of G eo rg e’s m istakes. Bessarion needed to against G eorge, a m ere homuncio, Bessarion could range the consensus ot
recover the herm eneutical high g round if he were truly to m ake Plato safe ancient philosophical com m entators (IV . 1). By em phasizing A ristotle’s
for C h ristian ity . H e needed a technique of in terp retatio n w hereby he inferiority to Plato, Bessarion could endorse the view of his teacher
could face head on the central problem s o f P la to ’s reception; the pious Pletho, dem o n strate the cultural value accruing to Italy from the Hellenic
eclecticism of the early h u m an ist trad itio n had clearly becom e obsolete heritage, and show once and for all that P e tra rc h ’s fam ous dictum “ a
in the intellectual world to which Bessarion and his circle belonged. m aioribus Plato, A ristoteles lau d atu r a p lu rib u s” was nothing less than
W hat needed to be done, Bessarion saw, was to b ring about a rebirth w hat all an tiq u ity had held for truth.
in the W est not only of the dialogues of P lato but also of the N eoplatonic T h e third and m ost im p o rtan t advantage of the ancient com m entary
com m entary trad itio n which had grow n up aro u n d those dialogues in late tradition was that it provided the m eans to resolve the m ore intractable
antiquity. Such a revival would have a n u m b e r of advantages. problem s facing fifteenth-century interpreters of PlatQ. T h is was not only
In the first place, an in terp retatio n d raw n from late ancient com m en­ a m atter of providing m ore acceptable readings of p articu lar passages in
taries would have all the im m ense au th o rity of the ancient world behind the dialogues. It was also a m atter of providing, in general, a different
it, an authority probably greater in fifteenth-century Italy than at any approach and a m ore powerful set of tools for finding in the text of Plato
other tim e and place in E uropean history. a m eaning reconcilable w ith, and indeed positively useful to, a C hristian
Secondly, there was im bedded in these com m entaries a valuation of society.
A ristotle which Bessarion found both congenial and rhetorically conve­ Bv allow ing the ancient com m entators to guide his reading of Plato,
nient. T he thought of A ristotle was held to be fundam entally in accord Bessarion was opening a new stage in the in terp retatio n of the Platonic
with that of Plato, but at the sam e tim e it was an inferior reflection or dialogues in the L atin W est. T h e novelty of B essarion’s sources, how­
copy (in the m etaphysical sense) of Plato, an im itation an d a v u lgariza­ ever, was not allowed to dictate m any innovations in the rhetorical form
tion of his divine th o u g h t— useful, but seco n d-rate.209 Plato was the of his apologue for Plato. T h a t form rem ained on the whole a m irror im ­
age of G eo rg e’s Comparatio. As in the Comparatio, the first book is devoted
to the subject of P la to ’s usefulness. Bessarion und ertak es, first, to explain
Venice; a source which Bessarion may have known as well for he says in the first book
of the Calumniator (Mohler 2:149) that Plato’s syllogisms are even longer and more com­
why Plato em ployed dialogues, m yths and enigm as to com m unicate his
plex than Paul [of Venicej’s. On Bessarion and Trebizond’s relationship with Paul, see m eaning, and why he eschewed A ristotle’s handbook approach to the
E. P. Mahoney in the Journal of the History of Ideas 48 (1987), p. 224; and idem, sciences. Secondly, he attem pts to dem onstrate from ancient authorities
"Metaphysical Hierarchy,” p. 240, note 122. For the isolation of the Bessarion group,
see Calumniator II.3 = Mohler 2: 85, where Bessarion asserts that, “ fere omnes nostrae
and from the text of the dialogues them selves that Plato was indeed learn­
aetatis sapientes Latini Peripateticae sectae aemuli sint.” See also the revealing letter of ed in rhetoric, dialectic, n atu ral philosophy, theology, and m athem atics.
his famtliarts, Pietro Balbi, who in the preface to his translation of Proclus’ Platonic T h e third book of the Calumniator responds to the Comparatio’s second
Theology wrote, “ Nonne temporibus nostris non modo omnes qui liberales sequuntur
disciplinas, philosophi et medici, verum etiam theologi in publicis undique scolis et
book, in w hich G eorge had tried to show that P latonism was hostile to
Aristotilem et Averroym et Avicennam ac ceteros eiusmodi homines indubitanter se­ C hristian ity while A ristotelianism was virtually identical with it.
quuntur?” See the text in H.-D. Saffrey, “ Pietro Balbi et la premiere traduction latine Bessarion answ ers each of G eo rg e’s points seriatim. P lato had indeed been
de la Theologie platonicienne de Proclus,” in Miscellanea codicologica F. M asai dicata
M C M J X X IX , ed. P. Cockshaw, M.-C. Garand and P. Jodogne, 2 vols. (Ghent, 1979),
a polytheist, b u t so was A ristotle, and in any case he was not a vulgar
2: 425-437, at 433-434. polytheist b u t a believer in an em anation of divine principles, called
209 See tor instance II.11 = Mohler 2:198 ff., where Bessarion argues, in the manner gods, from a first principle; this idea had analogies, Bessarion claims,
of Middle Platonic expositors, that Aristotle disagreed only with Plato’s terminology, but
not with his doctrine as such; repeated at II.8 = Mohler 2:154, where Aristotle disagrees
w ith the belief of A vicenna, P eter L om bard, A lbert the G reat, and
wi th Plato’s pTuxorca but not his Siavoia. For Plato’s superior position with respect to T hom as A quinas who had all held to the instru m en tality of creatures in
Aristotle, see 1.1, II.4, III. 1 and above, p. 228f. For examples of Bessarion’s concordism the process of c re a tio n .210 Plato, like A ristotle, had w orshipped daim ons,
leading to Platonizings of Aristotle, see II.8 (where he argues that Aristotle believed in
personal immortality) and III.28 (where he maintains that Aristotle too had doctrines of
recollection and the preexistence of the soul). 210 Calumniator III.2-5. Bessarion quotes (III.2) a passage of Aquinas’ Commentary on
 248 P A R T III ROME 249

but these were not to be identified with devils or fallen angels, but were of the pro p er o rd er to be followed in expounding a theological system,
rath e r to be seen as aerial natu res interceding betw een the gods and m en m irro rin g as it does the P lotinian proodos of low er hypostases from
(III. 1). T h ere was no sham e in P la to ’s having borrow ed from the poets; h ig h e r.214 Its treatm en t of a n u m b er of theological problem s was to have
he had only borrow ed from good poets (h av in g excluded the bad ones considerable influence upon M arsilio F icino’s Platonic Theology, a work
from his ideal com m onw ealth). A nd he had also borrow ed from the begun by the Florentine philosopher in the sam e year that B essarion’s
H ebrew p atriarch s and prophets (as Eusebius tells us)— and surely Calumniator was p rin ted in R o m e.215 It was F icino’s Platonic Theology,
G eorge w ould not blam e him for that ( I I I .8). N or had Plato been the together w ith Book II of B essarion’s Calumniator, w hich codified the high
patriarch of heretics: G e o rg e ’s M anichean reading of the Timaeus was R enaissance practice of finding behind the text of Plato a systematic
idiosyncratic and (therefore) w rong ( I I I .21). It was Plato who believed theology like that of Proclus and the N eoplatonic com m entators.
in creatio ex nihilo, not A ristotle (III. 13). A nd if any ancient philosopher
* * *
had had intim ations of the T rin ity , it was Plato, not A ristotle— although
it is heretical to believe that anyone could have arriv ed at a natu ral Yet despite B essarion’s use of sources new to the L atin W est to expound
know ledge of the T rin ity (III. 15-16). P la to ’s belief in the im m ortality of the text of Plato, it w ould be w rong to pretend that he provides us with
the soul m ay not have been original, but it was his arg u m en ts for it that any strikingly original readings of the dialogues. Indeed, as it was part
m ade his th o u g h t valuable, not sim ply the fact of his having believed in of B essarion’s plan to use the consensus of ancient and m edieval com ­
the doctrine. P la to ’s arg u m en ts had in fact been so useful that they had m en tato rs to highlight the singularity of G eo rg e’s readings of Plato and
been em ployed by A lbertus M agnus ( I I I .2 2 ).211 A ristotle, it was inevitable that his in terp retatio n should be derivative.
In the fourth book of his Calumniator Bessarion answ ers the charges of W hat is interesting in B essarion’s exposition of Plato is rather the
im m orality G eorge had m ade against Plato in the third book of the Com- herm eneutical techniques and principles he is able to introduce into the
paratio. F ar from being a pervert and a d estroyer of the fam ily, Bessarion L atin practice of Platonic exegesis as it had developed in the first two-
argues, Plato could well have been (as it were) the a u th o r of Humanae vitae thirds of the fifteenth century.
(IV . 1). Bessarion explains why Plato seem ed to approve love betw een As has been said, B essarion’s m ethods of in terp retin g Plato were in
m ales, m arital com m unism and drin k in g parties, and he defends the ra ­ large m easure shaped by the need to respond effectively to T reb izo n d ’s
tionale b ehind P la to ’s adm ittedly unorth o d o x political in stitu tio n s.212 Comparatio and to the L atin tradition of anti-P latonism . Like other early
It is only in the second book of his Calumniator that Bessarion breaks R enaissance critics and exegetes, Bessarion was productive of theory
aw ay from the rhetorical stru ctu re that h ad been th ru st upon him by w ithout being conscious of theory. So it is useless to expect that the
G eo rg e ’s polem ic. In th at book he sets out w hat is virtually a Platonic herm eneutical principles he invokes should be theoretically consistent
T heology, based largely on P ro clu s’ great system atic w ork of the same w ith each other, or that his criticism s of G eo rg e’s m ethod should be pro­
n a m e .213 A fter som e prelim in ary considerations on m ethod, Bessarion found and p en etratin g . W ith o u r m odern aw areness of the holistic or
deals in o rd er (b eg in n in g at I I .4) with the n atu re of G od; w ith creation; positivistic com m itm ents of different herm eneutics, it appears to us that
w ith the soul; w ith fate, Providence and free will; and w ith the principles B essarion’s attitu d e to the use of authorities is subverted by his appeals
of the n atu ral w orld. T h is o rd er in itself reflects a N eoplatonic conception to the canons of historical and philological criticism , and that these
canons are in tu rn both incom patible w ith the assum ptions of
N eoplatonic herm eneutics. But despite the exaggerated claim s of some
the Sentences (IV, dist. 1, qu. 1, art. 3) where Thomas relies on Avicenna, and compares
it with a passage of Proclus, Inst. Theol., prop. 56, ed. Dodds, p. 54. The instrumentality m o dern historians, the scholarly com m unity of B essarion’s day had not
ot secondary causes in the divine act of creation was among the Thomistic and radical
Aristotelian doctrines condemned as Avicennan by Etienne Tempier in the Condemna­
tion of 1277; see J. F. Wippel, “ The Condemnations of 1270 and 1277 at Paris,’’ in
Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies I (1977): 169-201. 214 For a similar Neoplatonic order in Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, see Chenu, Towards
211 The greater part of this book is in fact taken up with criticisms of George’s inter­ Understanding St. Thomas, pp. 304-310.
pretation of Aristotle. 215 Ficino’s borrowings from Bessarion’s Calumniator have not to my knowledge ever
212 For Bessarion’s discussion of Plato’s political arrangements and marital com­ been noted in the secondary literature; I hope to assess these borrowings in a future arti­
munism, see above, p. 227; for his defense of “ Platonic love ”, see below, p. 259. cle. For Ficino’s use of translated passages from the Calumniator in his own translations,
See App. 13. see below, Vol. 2, App. 18A.
250 P A R T III ROME 251

vet undergone the h erm en eu tical revolution which w ould ultim atelv Yet if you think [the Fathers] must be believed in matters pertaining to
elevate the principle o f verification above all o ther principles in faith and true religion, my good fellow, and [these] most holy men do use
establishing historical tru th . H istorical “ research” in the p rem odern the words of Plato to confirm the faith and true religion, why don’t you
allow it to be fair to trust them when they hold that Plato is preferable by
period still m ixed, to gether w ith “ m o d e rn ” critical techniques, the far to Aristotle? But if our holy doctors had been solely devoted to God,
unem b arrassed use of m yth, exemption, secondary elab oration, and and had barely tasted (as they say) of the liberal arts, I should certainly
hagipgraphical apriorism characteristic of prim itive holistic form s of in ­ concede to you that in matters touching geometry geometers are more to
terpretation. T h u s for Bessarion and his contem poraries the contrast b e­ be relied upon than holy simplicity, and that men learned in philosophy
tween truth and usefulness th at we have noticed in earlier chapters was and the liberal arts should receive more credence [in those subjects] than
rude and ignorant persons, however holy they are thought to be. But what
not yet felt as a con trad ictio n . N o positivist technique, hum anistic or of those who with holiness have arrived at the peak of learning and
otherw ise, had yet been able consistently to provide the degree and kind wisdom, have read the books of Plato and Aristotle and have carefully
of certainty as to original m ean in g , d ate, and context which m ight enable scrutinized the opinions of both philosophers—such men as Basil, Gregory
com m entators u pon a given text to dispense system atically w ith inherited [Nazianzen], Cyril, Gregory [of Nyssa] among the Greeks, and among the
apripri assum ptions o r w ith the au th o rity of an interpretative tradition. Latins Augustine, Boethius, many other very wise and distinguished
students of philosophy? If such persons, in treating of true religion, have
T his reliance on au th o rity an d the apriori is seen clearly enough in willingly reposed themselves upon the authority of gentile philosophers,
B essarion’s own principles of in terp retatio n . His use of au th o rity to what makes you think that men ought to spurn these authors and follow
establish the m ean in g of a text is indeed far m ore conservative than you alone?217*
T re b iz o n d ’s, in p art no d o u b t because in this case the authorities are on
Bessarion is no d o ubt perfectly right about all of this, but he has
his side. G eorge had in good hu m an istic fashion invoked the principle of
rath er missed the point. G eorge is arguing, as D ecem brio had argued
adfontes, that one should establish the intention of an au th o r or the m ean ­
against A rchbishop Pizolpasso, that holiness and religious authority are
ing of a practice by going to the original text of the au th o r or the source
irrelevant to the task of establishing historical fact. If the authentici vin
of the practice. ‘W h at P lato S a id ’ should be established from the text of
had laid it dow n as a m atter of faith that one should rely upon the gen­
the dialogues, not from the endorsem ents of later au thorities, even
tile philosophers, Bessarion w ould have had a case. But they had not.
Fathers of the C h u rch . B essarion by contrast relies, after the m a n n e r of
M oreover Bessarion has u n d ercu t his own appeal to au th o rity by ad m it­
the scholastic theologians, on “ reason and a u th o rity ” ( I I .8; I I I .9)— that
ting that “ holy sim plicity” is u n tru stw o rth y in m atters concerning the
is to say, w hat should be the case, and w hat older w riters should have
liberal arts; the addition of learn in g to sanctity pan ratione should not in ­
thought to be the case. H e professes to be pained and shocked that T reb i-
crease learning, still less historical certainty. A nd to argue that C h ris­
zond could th in k the F athers capable of ad m irin g the m o nster of d ep rav i­
tianity would lose the support of Plato if Plato should prove to be
ty that G eorge believes Plato to have been. G eorge should not have said
“ u n h o ly ” was a gross instance of petitio principii.
w hat he said ab o u t P lato because it deprives C h ristianity of its m ost effec­
tive apologist.216 G eorge tried to destroy the reputation of the F athers
because he realized they favored P lato above A ristotle. But even G eorge 217 Calumniator II.2 = Mohler 2:83: “ Atqui si in iis, quae ad fidem et veram
religionem pertinent, credendum esse existimas, o bone vir, Platonis autem verbis sanc-
was forced to concede, on p ain of heresy, that the F athers were tissimi viri utuntur ad fidei et verae religionis confirmationem, cur aequum non censes
authoritativ e in m atters of faith and salvation. praeberi iis fidem, dum in his Platonem longe Aristoteli praeferendum existimant?
Quodsi doctores nostri sancti quidem tantummodo et deo dediti fuissent, optimarum
vero artium studia vix summis, ut aiunt, labris degustassent, concederem tibi prolecto
geometrae potius in rebus ad geometriam pertinentibus quam sanctae simplicitati esse
credendum et studiosis philosophiae ac bonarum artium peritissimis viris plus fidei
216 Calumniator 1.1 = Mohler 2:7, 9: ‘‘Eo autem molestius illius iniuriam tuli, quod non adhibendum quam iis, qui rudes fuissent atque ignari, tametsi vitae sanctitate et sapien-
modo Platoni, cuius cura haud me usque adeo soilicitasset, sed etiam sanctissimis nostrae tiae insignes haberentur. At si qui cum sanctitate ad summum etiam doctrinae et sa-
religionis viris, qui Platonem semper magni fecerunt et cum doctrinam eius et mores, pientiae pervenerunt legeruntque Platonis atque Aristotelis libros et utriusque
turn earn quam in opinionibus cum nostra tide habet similitudinem admirati sunt, non philosophi opiniones diligentissime sunt perscrutati, quales fuerunt apud Graecos:
parurtt dedecoris afferre videtur. ... Auget vero magis atque magis nobis indignationem, Basilius, Gregorius, Cyrillus, Gregorius alter, apud Latinos vero: Augustinus, Boethius
quod favorem, quern nostra religio ab exteris accipere potest auctoribus. calumniosa haec et alii complures sapientissimi viri et philosophiae studiis illustres, et tamen, cum de
Platonis reprehensio infringere ac debilitare videtur. ... Quapropter favendum imprimis vera religione disseruerunt, gentilium philosophorum auctoritatibus libenter innixi sunt,
ccnsui auctoritati sanctorum virorum. . . . ” quo pacto existimas homines te unum spretis illis auctoribus sequi oportere?”
 252 P A R T III ROME 253

Bejssarion thus fails to engage G eorge on the m ethodological p la n e ,218 of hum anistic criticism is a significant p reced en t.222 It is curious that
preferring instead the trad itio n al practice of establishing the tru th of Bessarion should w ant to use such a m ethod to establish w hat are basical­
historical accounts by ap p ealin g to texts whose au th o rity derives from ly non-theological truths; this should perhaps be seen as an o th er sign of
religious rath er th an critical principles. In one im p o rtan t respect, how ­ his alm ost involuntary tendency to blur the line betw een philosophy and
ever, his m ethod in the use of au th o rities diverges from that of the high theology.
scholastic period. For unlike the g reat scholastics, B essarion tries to G iven the shallow m ethodological consciousness of the period it is no
establish a consensus sanctissimorum virorum to d em o n strate that his readings surprise to see B essarion’s scholastic salvos landing well short of G eorge’s
of Plato and A ristotle are the correct o n e s.219 L egitim ating a doctrine by hum anistic em placem ents in the battle of herm eneutics; w hat is perhaps
appealing to an u n b ro k en consensus of w itnesses was an ancient practice m ore surprising is to see Bessarion him self m aking use of those same
of C hristian apologists, found for instance in T ertu llia n , E usebius, St. hum anistic m ethods in defending P la to ’s honor. For he em ploys in a
Irenaeus, and St. V in cen t of L erins. But though all of these w riters were n u m b e r of instances a hum anistic approach to the history of language in
known in the L atin W est d u rin g the M iddle Ages, the practice of seeking o rd er to p ut a better color on sententiae of Plato which G eorge had quoted
a consensus was neglected by m ost scholastic theologians of the high out of their linguistic co n tex t.223 H is atten tio n to context and genre re­
M iddle Ages and was only revived (in significantly altered ways) du rin g q u irem en ts, though not unexam pled in the literary criticism of late
the C o u n te r-R e fo rm a tio n , in response to the P ro testan t rev o lt.220 m edieval scholastic theology,224 no doubt owed m uch to the new em ­
Bessarion in seeking to ran g e a consensus of patristic and scholastic o p in ­ phasis in the im itative criticism of the hum anists upon the identity and
ion against G eorge was ap plying a basically theological m ethod he had intentions of the author. H e m akes use of the new hum anistic techniques
adopted in the course o f his patristic studies d u rin g the C ouncil of of source-criticism to un d erm in e the au th o rity of G eo rg e’s sources.225
Florence.221 In so doing he was foreshadow ing the apologetics of the six­ A nd he shows a hum anistic aw areness of period and cultural change in
teenth century, w hen scholars of the C atholic R efo rm atio n w ould use the defending P la to ’s social arran g em en ts on the grounds that they were
"a rg u m e n t from tra d itio n ” to co u n ter the philological and historical com m on practices in his d a y .226
criticism of E rasm ian an d P ro te sta n t R eform ers. T h is is not to say that T h e re is no doubt, how ever, that from the point of view of m aking
B essarion’s m ethod is in any sense as fully form ed as that of B aronius or Plato safe for C h ristianity the m ost im p o rtan t set of exegetical techniques
Bellarm ine; Bessarion has, for instance, only a vague notion of doctrinal Bessarion ’.ses are those he draw s from the N eoplatonic com m entary
developm ent, and he repeatedly conflates the notion of d o ctrinal auctoritas trad itio n of Plato and from Plato him self.227 T h e fundam ental move
with that of historical testimonium, as in the instance ju st qu o ted . But the m ade by ancient interpreters of Plato at least from the tim e of Plotinus
use of an arg u m en t from trad itio n specifically against the corrosive effect was to regard the dialogues not as literary accounts of some philosophical
discussions in A thens in the fifth and fourth centuries b c , b ut rather as
a kind of H oly W rit, as a m ysterious ep ip h an y of a theological system
118 Nor, tor that matter, does George engage Bessarion on these questions in his reply
to Bessarion (see above, p. 215), despite the (to us) obvious delects of his appeal to 222 There is of course little likelihood of a direct influence of Bessarion’s work upon
authority. later methods of historical theology.
219 The method is implicit throughout Book III especially of the Calumniator, and ex­ 223 Calumniator II.4 = Mohler 2:226-229. To counter George’s criticism that Plato had
plicit at I.l = \lohler 2:9: "Atqui Platonis doctrinam variam atque multiplicem turn paid worship ( latreia) to the pagan gods, and had therefore contradicted a basic Christian
diversis rationibus et auctoritate historiae communique omnium sententia turn ipsius doctrine, Bessarion points out that the words latreia and douleia had only acquired a
operurn testimonio demonstrabimus, morum vero praestantiam et integritatem vitae non technical theological meaning with the coming of Christianity and had before meant
solum lama publica. sed eius ipsius sermonibus atque praeceptis ostendimus, quibus something quite different; no contradiction could therefore exist. The similarity to the
homines hortatur ad bene beateque vivendum.” scholastic technique of distinguishing proper and improper senses is only apparent here;
220 See J. de Ghellinck, S.J., "Patristique et argument de tradition au bas moyen Aquinas’ consciousness of the modus loquendi of an author and even Abelard’s appeals to
age, ' in ,4us der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters. Studien und Texte Martin Grabmann , ed. A. Lang, diversa sigmficatio (see Sic et Non, in PL 178:1339f.) do not display any clear sense of the
J. Lechner, and M. Schmaus, Beitraege zur Geschichte der Philosophic und Theologie historical development of language typical of the humanists.
des .Mittelalters, Suppl. 3.1 (Muenster, 1935), pp. 403-426. One should not confuse the 224 See A. J. Minnis, Medieval Theories of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later
historical consensus Patrum with the legal and logical concordia auctontatum of high M iddle Ages (London, 1984).
scholasticism, lor which see the Introduction, p. 20. 225 For one example, see below, p. 260.
221 for the importance ol the disputes with the Greek church in reviving this sort ol 226 See esp. Calumniator IV .3 and IV .5.
apologeticai technique, see clc Ghellinck, op. tit., p. 418. 227 For an account of Neoplatonic hermeneutics see Coulter (q.v.).
254 P A R T III ROME 255

whose true m eaning could only be u n d erstood by in itiates.228 T he B essarion’s efforts to refute G eorge’s readings of P lato thus involve a
N eoplatonic theory of textuality presupposed w hat has been called the variety of m ethodological principles. H e establishes apriori by appeal to
Principle of C orrespondence, the belief th at each elem ent at a given level a consensus of authorities that Plato is pious and m orally adm irable and
of being— w hether intelligible, psychical, or corporeal bein g — cor­ that his thought is very close to C hristian tru th . H e also corrects p a r­
responded to some elem ent at every o th er level of being. It also p resu p ­ ticular “ m isreadings” on G eorge’s part, first, by m eans of philological
posed a view of language w hereby w ords, being m odelled on or standing and historical criticism , and secondly, by assum ing a N eoplatonic theory
for pbjects of sense, were truly ad eq u ate vehicles of expression only for of textuality which enables him to read inconvenient passages as
the h u m an and physical sciences. A t the hypostasis of Soul, they could allegorical or symbolic. It should be said, how ever, th at although for the
only by a severe reductionism replicate the processes of discursive or purposes of exposition it has been necessary to classify B essarion’s ex-
syllogistic reasoning. At the level of M in d o r in tuition, beyond Soul and egetical techniques into theological, hum anistic and N eoplatonic species,
Body, linguistic represen tatio n of noetic experience was only possible Bessarion him self clearly m ade no such classifications an d indeed seemed
through allegory, m yth, and sym bol: au ral signs co rresponding to inex­ to be wholly unconscious of any conflict betw een the various herm eneu­
pressible realities beyond the reach of lang u ag e. H ence P la to ’s dialogues, tical com m itm ents he has m ade in his expositions of.Plato and Aristotle.
discussing as they do things beyond the pow er of sensible signs to rep re­ * * *
sent, cannot and should not be reduced to their literal m eaning, as the
doctrinal and im itative criticism of earlier h u m anists, including George, T o illustrate further B essarion’s exegetical m ethods, and to assess in
tended to do. J u s t as in m edieval Biblical in te rp retatio n , we need always som e m easure their effectiveness, I give now som e exam ples of ways in
to be aw are of possible h igher m eanings in the text. T h e noetic ex­ w hich Bessarion defended Plato from p articu lar charges m ade against
perience of wise and learned m en enables them to find such m eanings in him by T reb izo n d . As it is plainly im possible here to treat in detail each
the text, but they are hidden from the vulgar. T h u s if a p articu lar passage of B essarion’s counterargum ents, I have chosen specim ens which are at
in the dialogues seems on the face of it useless, u n C h ristian , or im m oral, once characteristic of his approach and also afford com parisons with
we should be p repared to discard the literal m eaning in favor of a higher earlier and later interpreters of the dialogues.
one which o u r apriori know ledge of P la to ’s m etaphysics (draw n from A charge against Plato m ade repeatedly in the fifteenth and sixteenth
Plotinus and Proclus) enables us to glim pse beyond the veils of literary century w ac that his “ way of teaching” was too disorderly and obscure
representation. In hiding divine tru th s from the gaze of the vulgar in this to be of m uch use in ed u catio n .230 G eorge, of course, had gone so far as to
way Plato was only doing w hat all religious teachers have done, from the
Pythagoreans and C hald aean s to the pro p h ets and sacred w riters of the
B ible.229
eodem ritu tradenda suis hominibus censuit. Credendum est enim doctoribus nostris, qui
haec de Platone prodiderunt. Quo pacto igitur, qui Christianam fidem non ficte ac
simulate, sed vere constanterque profitetur, haec apud Platonem reprehendat atque-ir-
228 Bessarion in making this point ( Calumniator 1.1 = Mohler 2:Ilf.) quotes the same rideat, quae in sua religione magnopere probat et laudat?’’
passages from the Epistulae used by modern scholars who argue for “ unwritten doctrines’’ 230 Despite Bessarion’s efforts, the charge was to remain a major source of embarrass­
in Plato. See E. N. Tigerstedt, Interpreting Plato (Stockholm, 1977), esp. chapter six. ment to Plato’s advocates well into the sixteenth century, who frequently tried to
229 See Calumniator II.8 = Mohler 2:157: “ Accedit ad haec rerum divinarum decens oc- “ methodize” the dialogues into a form more convenient for pedagogy. Examples of
cultatio, quas Plato verbis mathematicis adumbrare pulcherrime conatur, quern ad recastings of Plato’s political works in more methodical form: Antonii Montecatim in
modum alios quoque gentiles theologos, fabulis alios, alios aenigmatibus sive allegoriis [Platoms libros decern De republica] partitiones et quasi paraphrasis quaedam ... [nec non] leges, quae
videmus fecisse. Quid principes nostrae religionis commemorem? Quos quis non videt, in libris illis [Platonis De legibus] sparsim sunt dijjusae, ab Antonio Montecatino in Epitomen et or-
quantis verborum velaminibus divinarum rerum praecepta contexerint? Pleni sunt dinem quendam redactae, 3 vols. (Ferrara, 1587-1597); see App. B, no. 143. Summa doctnnae
huiusmodi arcanis libri prophetarum, plena vetus omnis scriptura sacra, allegoriis Platonis de republica et legibus [autore Joanne Sleidano] (Strasbourg, 1562); see Ritter 4:
scilicet, suspectionibus, relationibus, translationibus, et tamen nemo hanc nisi impius 467, no. 3222. Platonis De republicis [sic] libri decern a Sozomeno traducta et a dialogico in
reprehendit. Nemo doctrinam ita opertam quasi fabellas irridet, sed omnes admirantur, perpetuum sermonem redacti (Venice, 1626); copy at BAV. A Latin translation of Averroes’
colupt, venerantur. Propter quod plerique sapientissimi viri sanctissimique ecclesiae doc- Paraphrasis in libros de republica printed in Venice in 1552 and 1578 evidently served the
tores multum laboris, operae, studii in his exponendis consumpserunt. Sic ohm same “ methodizing” purposes. There are many examples of handbooks of Platonic phi­
Pvthagorei philosophi docere res divinas solebant, sic Plato facere voluit, non modo losophy from the sixteenth century. Some of the “ methodizers” of Plato are responding
Pvthagoreos et aetatis suae morem secutus, sed etiam Chaldaeos et Iudaeos, quos to criticisms of Melanchthon (note 19, above), who had in turn been influenced by
adierat, et prophetas e nostris aliquos viderat, a quibus pleraque fuerat edoctus, quae George’s Comparatio.
 256 P A R T III ROME 257

use P la to ’s obscurity as evidence that he was a fraud. B essarion, in answ er B essarion thus cuts the ground from ben eath the pedagogical objection
to the charge, adopted several lines of defense. H e invokes first the tra d i­ to P lato by ad m ittin g its tru th , b u t challenging the value of handbooks
tional m edieval explanation o f obscurity, th at the a u th o r had intentionally as the only useful approach to education:
m ad^ his text difficult in o rd er to exercise the ingenuity of students and Indeed, everyone can judge from his own experience how beneficial it is to
make them value m ore th eir h ard-w on know ledge.231 A lternatively, commit to memory rather than to letters the things learned from others or
Bessarion m akes an historical arg u m en t (also traditional) th at Plato feared from our own meditations, and how much more useful it is that children
he m ight suffer persecution in the sam e way that Socrates had , and so had should hear such things from their parents, or disciples from masters, as
taken care to disguise his teachings from the v u lg a r.232 A th ird solution though by inheritance, guarding them in their minds—not preserving them
in books.236
is to see Plato as the au th o r of a “ p rim ary so u rce’’ in philosophy, com ­
parable to D em osthenes in orato ry or the Fathers in theology; A ristotle B essarion adm its the value of A ristotle’s textbook ap p roach for pedago­
on the oth er h an d should be seen as a w riter of “ secondary sources” or gical purposes, b u t, despite his pose of even-handedness, allows him self
handbooks of philosophy based on P latonic philosophy, and thus com ­ a sneer that anyone could equate A ristotle’s schoolm astering with the
parable to H erm ogenes who had w ritten a h andbook of rh etoric (based on esoteric religious wisdom of P la to .237 T h e attractio n s of such an esoteric
D em osthenes) or the scholastics whose sum m ae w ere in large part teaching, in an age w hen knowledge was rapidly being “ vu lg arized ” by
system atic versions of the F a th e rs.233 the spread of p rin tin g and lay schooling in the classics, is obvious.
T h is view of P lato ’s works as sources and A risto tle’s as m ere A n o th er fam ous obstacle to P lato ’s reception in the C h ristian world
pedagogical tools shaded easily into a N eoplatonic defense of P la to ’s was his doctrines of the preexistence and tran sm ig ratio n of the soul,
obscurity as a necessary obscurity dictated by the sublim ity of the subject w hich seem ed to contradict the C hristian dogm a of the special creation
m atter and the depth of P la to ’s thought. A ristotle had been able to reduce of each soul by G od. H ere again Bessarion uses the N eoplatonic tradition
his thought to handbook form because he had dealt m ostly w ith the lower, of exegesis to reduce the distance betw een Plato and C hristianity. In
physical w orld to which h u m an language was a d eq u ate, and also because ch ap ter I I .8, having discussed P lato ’s proofs of the im m ortality of the
his thought was m ore superficial th an P la to ’s. P la to ’s th o u g h t was of ob­ soul in the Laws, Phaedo, and Phaedrus, Bessarion goes on to treat the
jects so sublim e that he he was loath to defile them by co m m ittin g them
to w riting; in this he was only following the practice of the Pythagoreans
and the D ru id s who had not cast their pearls of divine w isdom before the
longeque sanctius esset haec toto animo colere et venerari. Nam de ceteris quidem rebus,
swinish m u ltitu d e by w riting dow n their secret beliefs.234 etsi more paedagogorum certas regulas [nva<; xavovou; xai pe9o8ov -cexvTls] non tradiderit,
Plato therefore wrote down nothing relating to primary and supreme quo pacto scilicet vel orandum sit [8ri(i.T)YopT|-c£ov] vel disputandum vel huiusmodi aliquid
agendum, in dialogis tamen, quos summo artificio singularique doctrina conscripsit,
realities—or very little, and that in a very obscure way—because he felt it plurima atque utilissima omnium fere bonarum artium ac disciplinarum praecepta in-
to be impermissible to share such high matters with the multitude, and he seruit.’’ For the “ sowing” of Plato’s dialogues with useful doctrines, cp. Proclus, Thtol.
thought it far holier to worship and venerate such realities with his whole Plat. 1.5, ed. Saffrey-Westerink, p. 23.
mind. Regarding other matters, although he did not, to be sure, lay down 236 Calumniator 1.2 = Mohler 2:21: “ Siquidem facile in se quisque experiri potest,
any definite rules like a schoolmaster—how one should orate, or dispute, or quam praestet, quae vel ab aliis discimus vel ipsi meditamur, memoriae quam litteris
do things of that sort—he did nevertheless sow in his dialogues (which were mandare, et quanto utilius sit haec filios a parentibus et discipulos a magistris quasi per
artfully and learnedly written) many very useful precepts relating to nearly successionem percipere et animo custodire, quam si libris servarentur. ”
all the disciplines and liberal arts.235 237 Bessarion’s official position throughout the Calumniator is that both Aristotle and
Plato are to be esteemed and valued, though Plato is closer to Christianity and therefore
more useful as a support to religion. On occasion, however, he will slip, revealingly, into
a more Plethonian attitude to Aristotle, as for example at IV. 1 = Mohler 2:429, where
Calumniator II.8 = Mohler 2:161. he notes that Aristotle fails to condemn homosexuality in soldiers at Pol II.9: I wonder
232 Ibid. III.4 = Mohler 2:231; see also III.20 = Mohler 2:347. what [George] would say, Bessarion remarks, if Plato had ever said the kind of thing
233 See above, p. 223. Aristotle says here, “ quale militibus Aristoteles sine aliqua detestatione permittit, quasi
234 Bessarion's beliefs about the esoterism of the Pythagoreans and the Druids are deriv­ parum ad rei venereae libidinem intersit, mulieremne aliquis an marem expetat.” Again,
ed either from Iamblichus, De vita pythag. 28.146 or from Pletho; see above, note 140. Bessarion’s belief (absorbed from Pletho) that Alexander of Aphrodisias was the best
235 Calumniator 1.2 = Mohler 2:19: “ Plato igitur nihil de primis supremisque rebus aut guide to Aristotle ( Calumniator II.9 = Mohler 2: 173) may be thought an implicit criticism
quam paucissima et ea perobscure hac causa scripsit [r| j3paxe’ arr’ autov xai 8i’ aiviypwv of Aristotle, as Alexander’s interpretation made Aristotle almost as difficult to reconcile
rj prio’ oXco? au-fYEYpaipevai], quod rem tantam multitudini communem facere non liceret, with Christianity as Averroes’.
 258 P A R T III ROME 259

question of the so u l’s preexistence. H e adm its frankly th at both Plato and A ristotle) w ere incapable of appreciating his m etaphysics, his only course
A ristotle believed in preexistence and that C hristian ity does not teach if he w ished to m ake his doctrine of im m ortality plausible was to link it
sudh a doctrine. Yet there is an im p o rtan t difference betw een the with a doctrine of preexistence (2:147). In the sam e way, we can u n d er­
teachings of Plato and A ristotle which shows P la to ’s g reater proxim ity to stand the tran sm ig ratio n of souls as a “ noble lie” intended for the benefit
C h ristian tru th (2:151). A risto tle’s m etaphysics, assum ing as it does the of the vulgar, to keep them from sin. A lternatively, Plato intended the
finitude of being and activity and the eternity of the universe, entails for doctrine seriously, as an exam ple of divine punishm ents that the wicked
him either that a finite n u m b er of individual souls have existed from an w ould suffer in the afterlife; he of course did not m ean that brute bodies
eternity conceived of as infinite tim e (B essarion’s own in terp retatio n of w ere actually enform ed by hum an souls, b ut rath er th at h um an souls
A ristotle), or th at there is only one soul for all m en, as the execrable Aver- w ere forced to com m une with brutish spirits— a form of punishm ent
roe$ believed A ristotle to have tau g h t. For if im m o rtal souls can be sim ilar to C h ristian teachings about hell (2:161-163). (W e m ay note in
generated in tim e, then there w ould be an infinite n u m b e r of them , since passing here that the use of different and contradictory explanations of
tim e is infinite; and for A ristotle, to believe in an infinity of beings is in the sam e text is entirely typical of m edieval exegetical practice, and il­
principle irratio nal (2:147). P la to ’s m etaphysics, by co n trast, did not lustrates the non-apodictic aim s of pre-m odern herm 'eneutical m ethods.)
force him into a position which was contradictory of C h ristianity, T h e doctrine of recollection, on the other h and, has a metaphysical
although it was not identical to that of C h ristian dogm a. Plato thought m eaning w hich escapes crude literalists. T o u n d erstan d it, we have to
intelligible being infinite in pow er (Bessarion is of course reading think of recollection in ontological, not chronological term s. Plato did not
Plotinus and Proclus into Plato here), which m eant th at there was in m ean that m en learned by recollecting w hat they had experienced in a
principle no objection to intelligible being producing an infinite n u m b er previous tim e; w hat he m eant by recollection was the ascent of the soul
of individual souls by em an atio n . In the Timaeus Plato h ad even said that to an aw areness of its true origin, God; it “ tu rn ed w ith in ” , away from
soul em anated from G od (2:153: rcpooSov ex 0eou). By this Plato did not the senses, an d in so doing recalled or becam e conscious of its higher
m ean that individual souls were generated in tim e like corporeal things, n atu re (2:467).
b ut ra th e r th at they were ontologically d ep en dent on intelligible being Bessarion was thus able to use the N eoplatonic u n d erstan d in g of the
( “ eternally b e g o tte n ” ); their eternity, being extrinsic or “ ad v en titio u s” , soul and h u m an consciousness (especially, here, the und erstan d in g of
enabled them to “ p articipate in tim e ” (xpovou pexlx61)- W h at Plato had Plotinus, Proclus, and pseudo-D ionysius) to rehabilitate a part of
m ean t to teach by his doctrine of the preexistence of the soul, then, was Platonic philosophy which had generally resisted C hristianization in the
the soul’s ontological dependence on a realm of intelligible being. From L atin W est after the tim e of A ugustine. In a sim ilar way, Bessarion
a tem poral m ode of consciousness, the soul ap peared to be created in rehabilitates the idiom of G reek hom osexual rom ance in Plato, which
tim e; in an etern al m ode of consciousness, it was eternally created. had em barrassed or repelled earlier hum anists (IV .2). B essarion’s m ain
Bessarion now here declares this p articu lar in terp retatio n of psychic strategy for carry in g off this herm eneutical feat was to take P lato’s
being, which radically deifies the h u m an soul, to be co n trad icto ry of o r­ to lerant references to hom osexual conventions and locate them w ithin'a
thodox C atholicism . trad itio n of m etaphysical eros, a tradition stem m ing from P lato ’s own
If (as Bessarion implies) this doctrine could be m ade to agree w ith the Symposium and passing through A ugustine, Proclus and the pseudo-
C h ristian d o ctrine of the divine creation of individual souls in tim e, why D io n y siu s.238 H e first distinguishes platonice betw een two kinds of love:
had Plato chosen to use such a m isleading term as “ preex isten ce” ; why a divine kind which is “ honorable, m odest, dem ure, loyal, holy, blessed,
had he spoken in the Timaeus of the tran sm igration of souls into the a safeguard of chastity and continence, generously inspiring the soul and
bodies of beasts? A nd w hat had he m eant w hen he tau g h t that learning loving and obedient to v irtu e ” ; and an earthly kind which is “ the com ­
was nothing o th er than recollecting w hat we knew in a previous ex­ panion of lust and luxury, sham eless, wicked, h u rtlin g rashly towards its
istence? evil d e sire .” 239 T h e good eros or amor has been praised by holy men
G iven P la to ’s historical situation, B essarion argues, it was not possible
to teach a d o ctrine of the im m ortality of the soul (and thus uphold m orali­ 238 On this tradition see A. Nygren, Agape and Eros, tr. P. S. Watson (London, 1953).
ty), w ithout also holding to a doctrine of preexistence. Since the m en of 239 Ibid., IV .2 = Mohler 2:445: “ Gentiles enim amorem sive cupidinem, si cui [i.e.,
Georgio] ita vocare magis placet, quamquam non apte hoc omnibus locis dici potest,
P la to ’s tim e believed in the eternity of the world, and since m ost (even duplicem esse voluerunt nec eadem via eodemve alflatu animos hominum incendere, sed
 260 P A R T III ROME 261

throughout the ages, especially by D ionysius the A reopagite. T h a t most B essarion’s reinterp retatio n of the hom osexual language in Plato as
hol^ m an, apostle, and P latonist has shown us in his De divinis nominibus “ Platonic love” shows b etter th an any o th er exam ple how the exegesis
that G od is him self the source of heavenly love, which life-giving pow er of Plato in the fifteenth century was shaped by the conditions of its recep­
he pours out from his lim itless substance, binding together all beings in tion. It is a rem arkable coincidence, if it is a coincidence, that B essarion’s
the universe and linking them in a chain of love back upon his own nature. rein tro d u ctio n into the W est of the doctrine of P latonic Love should have
Nevertheless, with the lim itations o f o u r h u m an language it is inevitable been published little m ore th an a m onth after M arsilio Ficino finished
that dirtv-m inded persons such as G eorge will often confuse the two erotes. w riting his com m entary on the Symposium, the Convwium de amore, which
Q uo tin g one o f the steam ier passages from the C anticle of Solom on, was to b ring wide popularity to the them e for the next 200 years.244 T he
Bessarion asks rhetorically w hat accusations a m an like G eorge would nearly sim ultaneous em ergence of the doctrine of Platonic Love in both
have m ade against Solom on. Bessarion and Ficino suggests strongly that the doctrine was, in origin at
T h u s far Bessarion has given us only assertion and a distinction apnori, least, an exegetical response to charges of im m orality raised by op­
depending for its force upon the re a d e r’s acceptance of au th o rity and on ponents of P latonism — though afterw ards, to be sure, it becam e m uch
his desire to be n u m b ered am o n g the right-thinking. But Bessarion has m ore than that.
other arrow s in his m ethodological quiver. H e gives extended quotations * *
and sum m aries from the Phaedrus and the Symposium to show that G eorge
has taken his q u otations out of co n te x t.240 H e faults G eorge for reading B essarion’s In calumniatorem Platonis perform ed a double task. As a work
the Symposium in a crudely literal wav, as though it w ere a textbook of doc­ of apologetics, it gave for the first tim e convincing answ ers to m any ob­
trine, instead of taking account of the literary dem ands of the dialogue jections that had been raised to Plato by W estern critics since the twelfth
fo rm .241 H e enunciates the critical principle, central to the doctrinal century; it supplied for the first tim e w ell-argued and w ell-docum ented
reading of the early hu m an ists, that “ w hatever is discussed seriously and proof of the old anti-scholastic topos that Plato was closer to C hristianity
in a m an n er w orthy of a wise m a n ’’ is to be set dow n to the au th o r, while th an A ristotle. As a w ork of exposition, how ever, it provided the West
frivolous or im m oral rem arks are to be ascribed to genre requirem ents or w ith som ething still m ore im portant. It exposed fully to view the
to the desire to display vice in its true colors.242 H e even produces a plausi­ m etaphysical structure of the late ancient p agan theology that went under
ble piece of source-criticism , arg u in g th at the hom osexual love poem s in the nam e of P lato n ism ,245 and presented this P latonism , at the very
Diogenes L aertius, w hich had been ascribed by G ellius and others to
Plato, could not in fact have been w ritten by P lato .243 244 For the date, see S. Gentile, “ Per la storia del testo del Commentanum in Convwium
di Marsilio Ficino,” Rinascimento , ser. 2, 21 (1981): 3-27. As Bessarion s letter of
alterum ut nimis pueriliter sentientem nulla ratione regi ac insipientium solummodo ani- transmission accompanying a gift of the Calumniator to Ficino presupposes some earlier
niis insidere, libidinis atque luxuriae comitem, impudentem, scelestum, ad id, quod male acquaintance and correspondence between the two, it is not out of the question that
appetit. temere ruentem, alterum honestum, modestum, verecundum, constantem, sanc­ Ficino derived his interpretation of Platonic Love from Bessarion; Ficino. as we shall see
tum, beatum, castitatis continentiaeque custodem, benigne animis afflantem et amantem below, had also needed to defend Plato from charges of sexual perversion. See Mohler
observantemque virtutis.” 3: 543 [13 Sept. 1469, Bessarion to Ficino]: “ Supenoribus littens elucubratum opus nos­
-’40 Calumniator IV.2 = Mohler 2:459. trum et nuper editum in defensionem Platonis nos ad te missuros promisimus, cum ob
241 Ibid. = Mohler 2:479: “ Haec igitur, quae ab Aristophane et Phaedro seu quovis alio ingenium tuum et Platonicae doctrinae studium eximium, turn ut, quid nos ex illo fonte
(Bessarion consistently “ forgets” to mention Alcibiades’ speech] turpiter quasi per iocum hauserimus, facile perspicias et legas.”
dicta sunt, obiurgator noster (George] Platoni ascribit et quasi sententiam ac decretum 245 A number of Proclus’ works had been available in Latin since the late thirteenth
eius reprehendit, perinde ac si ignoraret hanc esse dialogi formam, ut, quae reprobare vult century. Aquinas’ translator William of Moerbeke translated the Elementatio theologica, a
auctor, ea prius probari ab aliquibus faciat talesque adhibeat coliocutores, qui, quod eos part of his commentary on the Parmenides, three opuscula (De providentia etjato; De malorum
dectat, servent et pro ratione suae quisque personae et loci et temporis loquantur.” subsistentia; De decern dubitatiombus\ all three edited in Procli Diadochi Tna opuscula, ed H.
242 Calumniator II.9 = Mohler 2:247: “ Quae enim graviter dignaque [quae < a b > Boese [Berlin, I960]), and a fragment of the Timaeus commentary (ed. G. Verbeke,
Mohler] homine sapiente disseruntur [a 8’ av axpifiux; xaci 6p9ai<; euptaxopeva XeyTyrai repo? “ Guillaume Moerbeke, traducteur de Proclus,” Revue pkilosophique de Louvain 51 (1953):
aXf|0£iav], nemo, inquam, tarn fatuus est, ut personae lictae, quae ilia nunquam disputa­ 358-373. Pietro Balbi, a familiar of Cusanus, translated the Theologia Platonica in 1462,
nt, potius quam auctori ipsi, qui dialogum conscripserit, censeat tribuenda, quamquam which survives in at least three manuscripts (Ambros. S 99 sup., Harleianus 3262, and
ab tilio se latenti accepisse.” The Greek text here gives the more trenchant critical Bergamo, Bibl. Civica MS Gamma IV, 19); see Saffrey, “ Pietro Balbi, (cited note 208,
remarks, insisting that an interpreter needs to take account of ho holos logos before deciding above). Nevertheless, Bessarion’s work was based on a far wider range of Neoplatonic
on the author’s \ententia. sources and was the first work in Latin to integrate the study of the dialogues with the
24< Calumniator IV.2 = Mohler 2:491-493. later Neoplatonic tradition of exegesis. For a summary of the Latin tradition of Proclus,
262 P A R T III ROME 263

m om ent when Italian hum anists were becom ing m ore deeply interested and as the u n ique deFiner of C h ristian tru th . P rotestantism , teaching the
in philosophy, as an attractive alternative to the culturally narrow and total depravity of m an , launched a political revolt against the ec­
“ irripious” A ristotelianism of the Italian universities an d conventual clesiastical polity; N eoplatonism , teaching the deiFication of m an, m ade
schbols. Finally, it supplied the W est w ith a practical d em o n stratio n of it possible sim ply to bypass that polity. A nd it was B essarion’s (and later
how it m ight go about Finding this P latonic theology behind the literary F icino’s) new interp retatio n of Plato which m ade this feasible.
disguises of P la to ’s dialogues. O n e cannot of course say that a new in terp retatio n of the Platonic
W ith the help of the N eoplatonic co m m en tary trad itio n Bessarion was dialogues was solely responsible for the rise of R enaissance N eoplato­
thuS able to bring Plato fully w ithin the horizon of Fifteenth-century nism . T h e new view of P la to ’s works was a necessary, b u t hardly a sufFi-
beliefs and values. T h is was a feat th at the techniques of hum anist cient condition for w hat was to becam e a broad cultural phenom enon
criticism had never satisfactorily accom plished. T h e doctrinal reading of w ith effects lasting well into the seventeenth century. A nd it was M arsilio
hum anist educators, with its em phasis on im itating ideal patterns of Ficino, not Bessarion, who proved to be the true spiritual source of
speech and behavior, lacked the herm eneutical pow er to assim ilate a R enaisssance N eoplatonism .
num b er of elem ents in the Platonic dialogues and had been forced in­
stead to conceal, to excerpt, to bow dlerize o r to C hristianize. M oreover,
hum anist doctrinal read in g from the b eg in n in g had been com bined with
a rud im en tary historical and philological criticism which had the poten­
tial to render Plato unusable by h u m an ist m oralizers. B essarion’s im por­
tation from B yzantium of a N eoplatonic view of the dialogues enabled
Plato to m ain tain his rep u tatio n for holiness and virtue.
T h e N eoplatonic m ethod of in te rp re tin g the dialogues, to be sure,
resem bles in m any ways the appro ach of m edieval theologians to the in­
terpretation of sacred texts, and this resem blance has led some students
of R enaissance Platonism to speak of it as a regression to the M iddle
Ages, or a “ retreat to m etaphysics’’. T h is view is no d o u b t correct if one
considers the long run. It was ultim ately science and historical criticism ,
with their pow er of creating an altern ativ e reality, which in the seven­
teenth and eighteenth centuries d rain ed aw ay the m ythic pow er of tra d i­
tional m edieval th o u g h t— indeed, it counted the N eoplatonic
interpretation of Plato am o n g its First victim s.245 From th at perspective,
B essarion’s rein tro d u ctio n of a fun d am en tally holistic herm eneutic, com ­
plete with several forms of “ secondary e la b o ratio n ” , w ould have to
count as regressive. But in the short ru n , N eoplatonism itself offered a
challenge of a different and m ore subtle kind to traditional C hristian
thought. C h ristian Platonism w ith its a tte n d an t occult and magical
elem ents, despite being itself a holistic o r “ closed” form of in terp reta­
tion, and despite having the supp o rt of h igh-ranking ecclesiastics
throughout the Fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, nevertheless tended to
underm ine the position of the church as dispenser of sacram ental grace

see P. O. Kristeller, “ Proclus as a Reader of Plato and Plotinus, and His Influence in
the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance,” in Proclus, Lecteur et interprete des Anciens, Collo-
ques internationaux du C. N. R. S. (Paris, 1987), pp. 191-211.
246 See the sketch in Tigerstedt, p. 491.
 P A R T IV
FLORENCE

Quid enim suavius est quam duos praecipuos

vates audire idem loquentes?
—Macrobius, Saturnalia 5.3.16
1, Marsilio Ficino, Doctor of Souls
O n the sixteenth of Ju ly , 1464, as C osim o d e ’ M edici lay dying, he called
to his sickroom a young scholar whom he had su p p o rted in his studies,
req uesting that he com fort him w ith m usic and spiritual reading in his
last illness. E n terin g C o sim o ’s cham ber, tow ards dusk, the young m an
h eard C osim o lam enting the m isery of this life and bem o an in g the errors
of h u m an k in d , “ like o n e ,” w rote Ficino (for he was the young scholar),
“ who aspired to heavenly b liss.” W hen C osim o had finished his affec­
ting speech “ on the contem pt of this life” , Ficino spoke. “ X enocrates,
a holy m an and a beloved disciple of Plato, treated-these sam e m atters
in his book On Death. ” ' “ R en d er for m e in L atin , M arsilio, what
X enocrates argued in G reek ” . Ficino did so. At one point in his reading,
reaching a certain passage where X enocrates described the sufferings of
old age, C osim o broke in with the exclam ation, “ H ow tru e !” . At the end
of the reading, C osim o approved F icino’s ren d e rin g and bade him write
dow n his tran slatio n .12
Som e eight days later Ficino retu rn ed , this tim e b rin g in g with him
som e dialogues of Plato he had newly tran slated from the G reek. Cosim o
had once again requested his presence “ as soon as possible. A nd bring
with you the book of our Plato On the Highest Good, w hich I think you have
by now translated into L atin, as you prom ised. I desire nothing m ore
ardently th an to recognize the way that leads m ost com m odiously to
felicity. Farew ell and come not w ithout yo u r O rp h ic ly re ” . O ver the
course of the next twelve days, Ficino read his L atin Plato to Cosim o and
to his young grandson, L orenzo, the future ru ler of Florence, who was
also present at C o sim o ’s deathbed. O n the tw elfth day, having finished
the Parmenides “ O n the O ne Principle of All T h in g s ” and the Philebus
“ O n the H ighest G o o d ” , C osim o, “ as though re tu rn in g to enjoy that

1 On the attribution of the Axiochus uel de morte to Xenocrates, see below, p. 307.
2 O p., p. 1965 (Praef. in Xenocratis lib. De morte): “ Die autem uigesima antequam cor­
poris uinculis purus eius spiritus solueretur, sole iam occidente, coepit huius uitae
miseriam deplorare, atque ita in errores mortalium inuehi, ut lucrum quoddam diceret
esse mortem, ubi permulta et acute et copiose de hums uitae contemptu disseruit, utpote
qui iam ad supernam beatitudinem aspiraret. Cum ille finem dicendi fecisset, haec
eadem, Cosme, inquam, Xenocrates uir sanctus atque dilectus Platonis nostri discipulus
in libro de morte tractauit. Turn ille: Referas, inquit, Latine, Marsilifi], quae Graece
Xenocrates disputat. Retuli. Probauit, transferri iussit.” The detail of Cosimo’s ex­
clamation at Ax. 369D, “ Hie exclamauit Cosmus: ‘O quam uera sentential’ ’’ is recorded
in a marginal annotation found in several manuscripts (e g., Laur. X XI, 8, f. 44r) and
some early printed editions.
268 P A R T IV FLORENCE 269

Principle and G ood, was recalled from this shadow o flife and ap p ro ach ­ * *
ed the heavenly lig h t.” 1*3
T his account of C osim o d e ’ M e d ic i’s Platonic prep aratio n for death is T h e best place, perhaps, to look for answ ers to this question is in the life
told us by Ficino him self and no d o u b t owes m uch to his habitual and opinions of the young Platonist who stood at C o sim o ’s bedside in his
m ythm aking and to his propen sity for finding m oral and providential last illness: M arsilio Ficino (1433-1499), afterw ards a leading figure in
m eartings in the occurrences of everyday life. Yet if there is any tru th in the m ovem ent know n as Florentine P lato n ism .5*Ficino was the eldest son
his account, and there surely is a good d e a l,4 how rem arkable is the con­ of a provincial doctor, Dietifeci Fecino (d. 1478), who lived in Figline
trast it presents with that tim e, thirty-five years earlier, w hen L eonardo V ald arn o , a small town of the Florentine contado about a half-day’s
Brurii presented his tran slatio n of P la to ’s Letters to the sam e C osim o d e ’ jo u rn ey from the city. T h e Fecino family was of little distinction, even
Medici! T h e n , it will be recalled, Plato was to be C o sim o ’s m odel of the in Figline, but Dietifeci was am bitious and highly com petent as a surgeon
good citizen lead er who opposed ty ran n y and revolution, jo in ed wisdom (by fifteenth-century standards), and hence m anaged to m ake a suc­
to eloquence, and everyw here supp o rted the public good. Now Plato was cessful career in Florence at the hospital of S anta M aria N uova. So suc­
m aking his ap p earan ce at a m om ent of life traditionally reserved, in cessful was he, indeed, that he becam e the personal physician of several
C hristian society, for pious read in g and m editation, for holy sorrow and leading families in Florence, including that of Cosim o d e ’ M edici. D r.
penance for the m isdeeds o flife. H ow had Plato, polytheist and suspected Fecino was also am bitious for his eldest son M arsilio, w hom he destined
hom osexual, whose theology J e ro m e had called the seedbed of heresy, from an early age to follow him in the m edical profession. A fter learning
whose m oral teaching had been condem ned by the greatest scholastic the elem ents of L atin g ram m ar in Figline, the boy was sent to Florence
theologians and by the canon law — how had the works of this pagan p hi­ som etim e after 1445 to acquire a m ore advanced training in hum anities
losopher becom e the praeparatio mortis of the leader of a C h ristian society? and logic before going on to professional training in n atural philosophy
and m edicine.
F icin o ’s two know n teachers in L atin letters were C om ando di Sim one
1 Ib id . : “ Deinde ... diui Platonis libros decem, et unum Mercurii e Graeca lingua in
C o m an d i and L uca di A ntonio B ernardi da San G em ignano. For Luca,
Iatinam a nobis transterri iussit, quibus omnia uitae praecepca, omnia naturae principia,
omnia diuinarum rerum mvsteria sancta panduntur. Haec omnia Cosmus et accurate who also tau g h t him m usic, Ficino retained in after life a certain ven era­
legit et absolute comprehendit. ” Cosimo was thus considerably in advance of modern tion, b ut neC her of his teachers had the com petence and rep utation of the
scholarship. '‘Cumque Platonis librum de uno rerum omnium principio, et de summo
great hu m an ist schoolm asters of the day. T o place his son with such
bono iam peregisset, duodecima deinde die, quasi ad id principium bonumque fruendum
rediturus, ex hac uitae umbra ad supernam lucem reuocatus accessit.” See Allen (1975), fam ous m asters was for a variety of reasons difficult or im possible for a
pp. 6*7. For Lorenzo’s presence at these readings, see the next note. m iddle-class doctor. T h u s Ficino never acquired the thoroughly polished
4 Cosimo’s ‘letter’ ’ to Ficino requesting him to bring the Philebus (O p . , p. 608) is almost
and correct L atin style or the broad com m and of classical L atin literature
certainly a fabrication of Ficino’s; see my “ Cosimo de'Medici as a Patron of Humanistic
Literature,’’ forthcoming in an anniversary volume edited by Francis Ames-Lewis (Ox­
ford Univ. Press). But the story of Ficino’s having read Plato to Cosimo on his death bed 5 The standard biography is by R. Marcel (q.v.); it is not, however, always accurate
is unlikely, nevertheless, to be a pure invention, since the textual evidence for the first ten or critical. The older study of Della Torre is still extremely valuable for many details.
dialogues translated by Ficino seems to confirm it (see below, note 82) and also because For an up-to-date account of Ficino’s early career and influences see A. Field, The Origins
Ficino in a later epistle recalled the scene to Lorenzo, who had also been present at of the Platonic Academy (Princeton, 1988), esp. Chapters 6 and 7. I am grateful to Professor
Cosirtio’s deathbed (O p., p. 649): “ Denique [Cosmus] Solonem philosophum imitatus, Field for allowing me to read his work in typescript. The documents published by Paolo
quum per omnem uitam uel in summis negotiis egregie philosophatus esset, illis tamen Viti in Mostra (q.v.) also correct many mistakes and romantic exaggerations in earlier ac­
diebus, quibus ex hac umbra migrauit ad lucem, quam maxime philosophabatur. Itaque counts of Ficino’s life. In two forthcoming articles, “ Cosimo de’Medici and the "Platonic
postquam Platonis librum de uno rerum principio ac de summo bono legimus, sicut tu nosti Academy’ ” , (J W C I) and “ The Myth of the Platonic Academy of Florence” (R Q ), I
quiaderas. paulo post decessit, tanquam eo ipso bono, quod disputatione gustaverat, re ipsa argue against the traditional interpretation of Ficino s report that Cosimo founded a
abunde iam potiturus. " If some of the details seem hagiographic, it must be remembered Florentine Academy under the inspiration of Pletho and argue that his “ Academy” as
that Cosimo himself would have good reasons tor imitating the examples of holy dying ot­ it ultimately came, in somewhat notional form, to exist after 1468 was probably nothing
tered by the religious literature of the period. To be sure, we know from other sources that more than a private gymnasium run by Ficino and having little to do with the Medici.
Cosiitio confessed and received last rites, and there are different accounts of his last words For further studies on Ficino the reader may consult Kristeller’s exhaustive
which show his thoughts on other subjects besides the Platonic One. See A. Fabroni, Magni bibliographies in Ritorno 1:3-196, now reprinted as a separate fascicule (with a few addi­
Count \tedicn vita, 2 vols. (Pisa. 1787-88), 1: 178t.; A. Brown, Bartolomeo Scala, 1430-97, tions and new pagination) under the title Marsilio Ficino and His Work After Five Hundred
Chancellor oj Florence: The Humanist as Bureaucrat ( Princeton, 1979), p. 38: and M. Phillips, Years, Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, Quaderni di Rinascimento 7
the \tem m rs oj \tarco Parenti: .1 Life in Medici Florence (Princeton, 1987), pp. 3-20. (Florence, 1987).
270 P A R T IV FLORENCE 271

that was the educational ideal of his d a y .6 T h is deficiency m ay in part be pid o ro tundity of o rdinary hum anistic rh e to ric .10 A nd som etim es, too, he
responsible for F icin o ’s later tendency to identify w ith the philosopher as describes the sophists of P la to ’s dialogues in term s which suggest he saw
against the rhetorician in the trad itio n al rivalry betw een the two cultures them as com parable to som e of the less adm irable representatives of
inherited from an tiq u ity . E arly in his life, how ever, he had apparently hum anist culture. In his arg u m en t to the Protagoras, for exam ple, the
nourished the am bition to follow a career in letters. H e m ade an unsuc­ sophists are described as eloquent philosophasters, boastful and
cessful attem p t to learn G reek while still in his ’teens, some years before avaricious, who parade their knowledge of civic virtue w ithout really
discovering his tru e m ission as the reviver of Platonism . Some of his early know ing w hat virtue is, or being able to defend it in a rg u m e n t.11 O n
letters to p atrons and friends aped the studied C iceronian style of the other occasions Ficino suffered from the sharp pens of litterateurs such as
h u m an ists.7 H e always retain ed a belief in the pow er of exam ples and B enedetto Dei and Luigi Pulci, who wrote poetical lam poons of F icino’s
authoritative sententiae to m old character: again, a belief typical of attem p t to recreate the ancient dignity of the p h ilo so p h er.12 Ficino had
hum anist e d u c a to rs.8 H e h ad ad m iratio n and respect for m any older never heard the w ord “ h u m a n ism ” , but he was clearly aw are of some
hum anists, such as B runi an d Poggio, as well as for his contem poraries of the vices and dangers of a purely literary culture; his real debt to
Landino and Poliziano. Yet som etim es he could be critical of the hum anistic culture by no m eans prevented him from, adopting a critical
rhetorical m ode of w riting as m eretricious and insincere, and yearn after stance tow ards some of its excesses.
a plainer and m ore “ philo so p h ical” style of discourse.9 U ltim ately he T h e sam e am bivalence m arks Ficino’s attitu d e to scholasticism . Ficino
would cultivate his own obscure and “ m ystagogic” style of w riting, cam e in contact with university culture for the First tim e around 1451,
laden with puns and irony, w hich stood at the opposite pole from the lim- and was to live as a student in the scholastic world until 1458.1314His chiel
teacher d u rin g this tim e was Niccolo Tignosi da Foligno, a physician and
A ristotelian philosopher at the Florentine studio. ‘4 T ignosi had him self
6 Ficino frequently quotes tags from Vergil, Horace, and Juvenal, wrote a
philosophical commentary on Lucretius (now lost), and had a good command of Cicero’s
n um erous connections w ith the hum anist culture of the period, and had
philosophica and later philosophical authors such as Macrobius and Apuleius. He ultimate­ even some pretensions as an historian and scholar. Yet he rem ained a
ly became, to be sure, the greatest native Italian authority on Greek philosophical
literature in the Fifteenth century. But his knowledge of the Latin literary authors and
comnrtand of classical rhetoric could not be compared with that of professional humanists. 10 See Ficino’s description of his own style and other references collected in Della
See for instance Ficino’s frank account of his own declamations “ inepta auribus Torre, p. 462, note 2. Ficino’s “ mystagogic” style appears mainly in his letters and
delicatis” which caused his hearers to weep at their own misery while laughing at his in­ prefaces, whereas his exegetic works employ an unadorned style, which, though fun­
eptitude (Della Torre, p. 805), and his apologies to Poliziano for his poor Latin style damentally classical in its syntax, makes no systematic attempt to avoid coinages and
{O p . , jp. 650); cp. Kristeller’s remarks in Kristeller (1956), p. 142. medievalisms in its vocabulary. The use of puns, one of the hallmarks of Ficino’s style,
7 See especially the letter to Giovanni de’ Medici written around 1454 (Suppl. 2:79-80), is condemned in classical rhetorical manuals. Ficino probably regarded his epistolatory
tumescent with the rolling rhetorical flattery of the period; Ficino’s later mode of praising style as an imitation of Plato, and his exegetical style as an imitation of the Neoplatonic
his patrons bespeaks a much more independent and ironic cast of thought; see below, p. commentators; see also below, p. 342f.
304. 11 O p. , p. 1297. More commonly, Ficino seems to have had scholastics in mind when
8 See below, p. 343f. he would describe “ sophists” ; see, e.g., Op ., pp. 1303, 1315, 1318, etc.
9 See the important letter to Antonio Serafico, again from around 1454, edited by 12 See Della Torre, pp. 820-829; Fubini (1984), esp. p. 21 f. On Pulci one may consult
Kristeller and A. Perosa in Kristeller (1956), p. 146: “ Alienum penitus ac diversum An­ S. S. Nigro, Pulci e la cultura medicea (Bari, 1981).
toni rtfiihi sepenumero amicitie nostre necessitudinem ut ita dixerim contemplanti vetus 13 For Ficino’s early study of Paul of Venice’s Logic, probably under Piero di Antonio
a nobis initum scnbendi genus videri solet. Nam exordiis, circuitionibus prolixisque Dini at the Florentine studio, see S. J. Hough, “ An Early Record of Marsilio Ficino,”
nimium verbis inter nos referte littere circumferuntur, quo in genere me potissimum R Q 30 (1977): 301-304, and Ritorno, p. 171, no. 134. For Ficino’s early scholastic-style
hacteilus fateor esse versatum ac plurimum temporis, presertim in tanta hominum quan­ treatises and his relations with scholasticism generally, see Kristeller, “ Florentine
ta nostra est coniunctione verbis operam tradidisse. Non enim nobis ut mihi quidem Platonism and Its Relations with Humanism and Scholasticism,” Church History 8 (1939):
videtur verborum persuasione ulla est opus, neque preter modum laudibus lepidique 201-211, and “ The Scholastic Background of Marsilio Ficino” , in Kristeller (1956), pp.
labore sermonis, quo inter nos tanquam inter ignotos et extraneos aliqua nova gratia con- 35-97.
stituatur. Quamobrem iam veteri stilo dimisso quo levissimi omnium garrule—nosse te 14 On Tignosi see A. Rotondo, “ Niccolo Tignosi da Foligno (Polemiche aristoteliche
opinof de quibus dicam—uti consueverunt, deinceps philosophorum more loquamur di un maestro del Ficino),” Rinascimento 9 (1958): 217-255; Enrico Berti, “ La dottrina
verba ubique contempnentes et gravissimas in medium sententias adducentes.” The am­ platonica delle idee nel pensiero di Niccolo Tignosi da Foligno,” in Filosofia e cultura in
biguity in Ficino's attitude is underlined by his having written this condemnation of Umbria tra Medioevo e Rinascimento. Atti del quarto convegno di studi umbri (Gubbio, 1966), pp.
rhetorical insincerity in what is itself a fairly polished specimen of the Ciceronian rumble. 533-565. M. Sensi, “ Niccolo Tignosi da Foligno: L’opera e il pensiero,” Annali della
For another example of Ficino’s ambivalence towards purely rhetorical means of educa­ Facolta di lettere e filosofia, Universita degli studi di Perugia 9 (1971/72): 359-495; and Field,
tion, see below, p. 293. Origins, chapter 6.
272 P A R T IV FLORENCE 273

firnj p artisan o f the superiority of m edicine to law, and of traditional T h e young becom e so besotted w ith their ability to m anipulate words
scholastic form s of learning to “ m e re ” literary know ledge. Ficino, in ­ th a t they never pause to think truly about things. Even worse, the best
deed, m ay have im bibed som e of his beliefs about the lim its of an d noblest m inds are num bed by the dry and repellant style of
hum anistic culture from his teacher, who lum ped law yers and orators scholastic discourse.
together as “ sophists” . But though F icin o ’s philosophical term inology
There are two principal kinds of [philosophical] discourse. ... One is
and style of arg u m en tatio n were p erm an en tly shaped by his scholastic liberal and pleasant, intricate to a degree with hidden art and worthy of
education, he was far from being an uncritical ad m irer of scholasticism a learned and noble man. This kind I highly approve, although it has
and integral A risto telian ism .15 In d eed , his sp iritual m ission, w hen he at grown out of fashion and is rejected by the philosophers of our time. To
length discovered it, was in som e m easu re defined by his rejection of my mind, Plato was the most distinguished exponent of it, and among
Latin authors our Cicero flourished in it beyond all others. The other ap­
A ristotelian scholasticism ; his subseq u en t self-definition as a Platonist
proach, the one our native [scholastic] philosophers profess themselves to
was to a large degree m ade in co n trad istin ction to w hat he saw as the be using—saying they are emulating Aristotle—is terse, dry, garrulous,
failure of scholastic m ethod and A ristotelian philosophy to achieve the thick with thorns and cautious reservations about minutiae; it demands not
true goals of m oral and religious ed ucation. only sharp wits and dog-eared erudition, but requires sibyls and oracles [to
Fjcino objected to A ristotelian scholasticism for both its form and its interpret it].18
content. H e w arm ly endorsed P la to ’s dicta in the Republic and Philebus Ficino was also hostile to the m agisterial pose affected by scholastic
which prohibited the teaching of d ialectic16 to the young; he clearly philosophers. H e him self preferred in later life the stance of a spiritual
associated such teaching with the trad itio n al scholastic practice of guide and friend— w hat he thought of as the “ Socratic m a n n e r” —
g ro u n d in g adolescents in the rules of logic: ra th e r than th at of a magister handing dow n authoritative knowledge de
Plato also tells us why we ought to treat dialectic cautiously. First, he shows haul en has.19 A different stance was indeed im plied by F icino’s view of
it must not be given to adolescents because they are led by it into three
vices: pride, lewdness, impiety. For when they first taste the ingenious
subtlety of arguing, it’s as if they have come upon a tyrannous power for 18 This quotation is from the dialogue De amore by Lorenzo Pisano. The speaker is
rebutting and refuting the rest of us. They are inflated with inane opinion an interlocutor whom Arthur Field has identified with great plausibility as the young
and puffed up with arrogance. They deceive themselves with opinion and Ficino; see Origins, chapter 6. I quote from the text given by Field, which is based on
stubbornness, they molest others with their insolence and impudence. Plato Florence, BNC, Magi. XXI 15, ff. 3v-4r and Budapest, Clmae 185, f. 3v: “ Duo sum
disserendi precipue genera, uti omnis plane nostis: liberale unum et iucundum, recon-
exclaims against this pride in all the dialogues opposing the sophists and
dita arte dumtaxat perplexum et docto ingenuoque homine dignum, quod plurimum
their disciples. He calls them not philosophers, but “ philodoxers,” that is, plane adprobo, licet inoleverit et nostri temporis philosophi illud aspernentur. In quo
men covetous of opinion and glory. (Tr. M. J . B. Allen)17 namque mea de mente Plato princeps fuit, et apud nos noster Cicero omnibus prelonge
plurimum effloruit. Alterum autem est quo nostrates philosophi se uti fatentur et
Aristotelem emulari dicunt, breve, aridum, argutum, plenum sentibus et scrupulis et
non solum acri detritoque eruditione eget ingenio, sed sibyllis et oraculis opus habet.”
15 1 use “ integral Aristotelianism’’ idiosyncraticaily here to refer to those (primarily The reference to Sibyls and the general terms of “ Ficino’s ” remarks echo Bruni’s stric­
but not exclusively scholastics) who wanted Aristotle to remain the basis of philosophical tures (Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum) on medieval Latin translators of Aristotle, which, he
education and the starting-point of philosophical speculation, as opposed to those said, “ only a Sibyl or an Oedipus would understand.” See The Humanism of Leonardo
(primarily but not exclusively humanists) who called for greater pluralism in philo­ Bruni, pp. 67-69. For Ficino’s knowledge of and admiration for Bruni, see below, pp.
sophical education and discourse. 306, 309 and App. 18A. A similar attack on scholastic discourse, wherein Aristotelian
16 In this period the word “ dialectic” was used interchangeably with logic except in philosophers are compared to sophists, is found in Op., p. 655 (a letter to Giovanni
technical contexts such as commentaries on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, where dialectic Pietro of Padua).
is defined as reasoning from opinions rather than from first principles. Ficino himself 19 See, for instance, a letter to Martinus Uranius written in the early 1490s (O p ., p.
rightly distinguished between Aristotelian logic, which he saw as an instrumental logic 936), where Ficino describes the two “ genera” of his “ friends” : “ Praeter patronos duo
dealing with terms, propositions and their relations, from Platonic dialectic, which he saw sunt nobis amicorum genera. Alii enim non auditores quidem omnes, nec omnino
as a natural logic involving intuition of real entities and the correct application of names discipuli, sed consuetudine familiares (ut ita loquar) confabulatores atque ultro citroque
to things. True to his character as an intellectual bricolateur he tended to regard both forms consiliorum disciplinarumque liberalium communicatores. Alii autem praeter haec quae
of logic as valid, though the Aristotelian was, naturally, inferior and preparatory to the dixi nos quandoque legentes et quasi docentes audiuerunt, et si ipsi quidem quasi
Platonic. See O p., pp. 1302, 1412, 1520, 1526; Allen (1975), pp. 218f., 432; Allen (1981), discipuli, non tamen reuera discipuli; non enim tantum mihi arrogo, ut docuerim ali-
p. 80. quos aut doceam, sed (Socratico potius more) sciscitor omnes atque hortor foecundaque
17 Allen(1975), pp. 230-231. For further criticisms of scholastic education, see Platonis familiarium meorum ingenia ad partum assidue prouoco.” For further discussion of
opera 1491, f. 328rb. what Ficino thought to be the “ Socratic manner” , see below, p. 323.
274 P A R T IV FLORENCE 275

true knowledge as a strictly incom m unicable experience, an intuition of T h e last sentence especially shows us w here F icino’s deepest concern
the divine, ra th er than as a system o f dogm atic form ulae in which the lay. T h e d an g er cam e not so m uch from the denial of specific doctrines
vulgar could be satisfactorily catechized. m ain tain ed by C h ristian theology as from the lack o f pietas characteristic
But far worse than the form of co n tem p o rary scholastic education was of the “ A verroist” approach to Aristotle. Since the tim e of Siger of B ra­
its content. Ficino repeatedly attacks the A ristotelians of his day as b an t and B oethius of D acia in thirteenth-century P aris there had always
desitructive of faith and piety. Like P letho and B essarion, he blam es been a faction in the arts faculties of E u ropean universities which
A ristotle and his followers for d en y in g direct divine causality in the dem an d ed the right to in terpret Aristotle in accordance w ith the “ best”
sublu n ar w orld and treatin g “ d iv in ities” as though they w ere n atu ral ob­ exegetes of his texts, w hether or not those in terp retatio n s were edifying
je c ts .20 But w hat really distressed Ficino ab o ut co n tem p o rary A ristote­ of C h ristian faith and m orals. A lthough there w ere a n u m b er of points
lians was their in terp retatio n of A risto tle’s views on soul, a correct view w here A ristotle was thought to differ from C h ristian ity , such as deter­
of which, as Ficino often said, was the basis of all m orality. In a fam ous m inism and the eternity of the world, the crucial issue for the
passage from his preface to P lotinus (1492), Ficino represents the world secularizers was the question of A ristotle’s doctrine of the soul. For
as occupied by two hostile cam ps of P eripatetics, both of w hom are op­ Siger and his followers the “ b est” in terpreter of A ristotle on the soul
posed to religion: was A verroes, who had denied that the Philosopher believed in personal
For almost the entire world is occupied and divided between two sects of im m ortality; it was for this reason that secularizing interpreters of
Peripatetics, the Alexandrians [i.e., followers of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ A ristotle becam e know n as “ A verroists” . A verroism cam e to Italian
interpretation of Aristotle’s D e an im a) and the Averroists. The one sect think universities in the early fourteenth century and quickly becam e the
our intellect is mortal, the other contend that it is one [i.e., the Averroist d o m in an t approach to A ristotle in arts and m edical faculties in Bologna,
view that there is one agent intellect for all men and therefore no personal P a d u a and lesser centers. In F icino’s day it ruled in m ost university arts
immortality]. Both schools alike are wholly destructive of religion, especial­
ly as they seem to deny that there is any divine providence over men, and faculties in Italy. H is own teacher, Niccolo T ignosi, was (in the broader
in both cases they seem to have been failed by their Aristotle. Today few sense) an A verroist.22*T h e m an later to becom e his philosophical rival,
men except for our sublime fellow-Platonist Pico seem to understand J o h n A rgyropoulos, who was teaching F lorence’s m ost noble citizens in
Aristotle’s mind with that sense of piety with which formerly Theophrastus, the later 1450s and 1460s— he too, if not a declared A verroist, was at
Themistius, Porphyry, Simplicius, Avicenna, and recently Pletho inter­ least willing to m ention w ith approval A verroes’ interpretation of
preted him.21

sessed a copy of it (see App. 12). For the history o f Renaissance Averroism, see G. di
2a See his Compendium in Timaeum, passim, e.g. at O p ., p. 1438, where Ficino accuses Napoli, L ’immortalita dell’anima nel Rinascimento (Turin, 1963), and the rich biblio­
Aristotle of neglecting to include providence in his account of sublunar causality; or O p., graphical footnotes in E. P. Mahoney, “ Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and
p. 1516 (Arg. in Lgg. X ) where physici, i.e., Aristotelian natural scientists, are blamed for Renaissance Aristotelianism,” in Neoplatonism and Christian Thought, ed. D. J. O ’Meara
denying the divine final cause of natural phenomena; or the Philebus commentary (Allen (Norfolk, Virginia, 1982), pp. 169-177, 264-283.
[1976], pp. 180-181) where the Aristotelians are said to “ howl” against Plato’s majesty. 22 Tignosi distanced himself from Averroes’ interpretation of Aristotle more firmly
21 Op., p. 1537: “ Totus enim ferme terrarum orbis a Peripateticis occupatus in duas than most Averroists, saying that it was certainly dangerous to the faith and must there­
pluiiimum sectas diuisus est, Alexandrinam et Auerroicam. Uli quidem intellectual fore be rejected. He also confidently rejected Alexander of Aphrodisias’ interpretation,
nostrum esse mortalem existimant, hi uero unicum esse contendunt. Utrique religionem “ quae positio est omnino abiicienda.” Yet in one place he cautiously admits that unaid­
ompem funditus aeque tollunt, praesertim quia diuinam circa homines prouidentiam ed human reason would have difficulty showing that Averroes was wrong: “ si quis
negfire uidentur, et utrobique a suo etiam Aristotele defecisse. Cuius mentem hodie tamen mere naturaliter loqueretur, istis obiectis [i.e., objections made to Averroes’ in­
paufci, praeter sublimem Picum complatonicum nostrum, ea pietate qua Theophrastus terpretation] facile respondet sustentans opinionem Auerrois et Ioannis [John of Jan-
olirh et Themistius, Porphyrius, Simplicius, Auicenna, et nuper Plethon interpretan- dun, a fourteenth-century Averroist], sed pro nunc ista [i.e., his own criticisms of
tur.” This passage is repeated virtually word-for-word in a letter to Johannes Pannonius Averroes, filched from Paul of Venice] sufficiant.” Nicolai Tignosii Fulginatis in hbros
(O p., p. 871). Ficino’s words are probably meant to refer primarily to the debate then Aristotelis de anima commentarii ad Laurentium Medicem uirum praeclanssimum (Florence,
raging in Padua which had opened in 1481 with the publication of Ermolao Barbaro’s 1551), p. 352. And in general Tignosi’s stance typified the sort of indifference to the
Paraphrases of Themistius, but his remarks are consistent with his earlier attitudes; see for religious need for good pagan authorities that Ficino censured. For the most part
instance the Platonic Theology (1474), O p., p. 327, or the letter to Giovanni Cavalcanti Tignosi affects a pose of scholarly detachment, e.g. at ibid., p. 385, where he coolly
from the early 1470s (O p ., p. 628) directed against Averroes’ doctrine of the unity of the distinguishes, almost in the manner of a modern historian of philosophy, the position
intellect. It was odd of Ficino to call Pletho a pious interpreter of Aristotle, as Pletho had of Alexander, of Plato, of “ the Church” , and that of Aristotle and Averroes on the
accused the latter of impiety and a tendency to atheism; the remark argues that Ficino question of immortality. For further evidence of Tignosi’s Averroism, see Verde 4.1:
could not have read Pletho’s Reply to Scholanus very carefully, though he certainly pos- 90-91.
 276 P A R T IV FLORENCE 277

A ristotle’s psychology.23 T h e D om inican school of A ristotelians, who fol­ A ristotelianism . H e w ould also have been introduced to a world of
lowed St. T h o m as in try in g to reconcile the principles of A ristotle’s religious em otions, the sapientum templa serena where grave youthful priests
n atu ral philosophy w ith C h ristian theology, was in eclipse in F icino’s stu- w ould, in the course of some spiritual colloquy, dissolve them into
denli days and would be revived only tow ards the end of the century. T o ecstasies while th eir com panions looked on with silent tears of joy. In
an intelligent yet devout person like Ficino, who w anted both to believe such an atm o sphere, the Platonic doctrines of m etaphysical love for G od
and to have good reasons for believing, the university culture of his day and for o n e ’s fellow creatures which Ficino was reading in A ugustine and
seem ed indifferent to the need for g reat philosophical authorities who D ionysius w ould take on a rich personal significance.
w ould stren g th en , not question, religious faith. F icin o ’s response to the various experiences of his youth is m ade m ore
F icino’s reaction to A verroism shows us that to u n d erstan d him we com prehensible if we take stock of w hat is known of his character from
m ust pay atten tio n not only to his form al education b u t also to his in- o u r various sources. G iovanni C o rsi’s early biography, though suspect
teribr life and religious sensibility. For his m ature experience of inferiori­ in som e m atters, can reasonably be relied on for m ore personal d etails.26
ty We have the profound discussion of K risteller,24 b u t for the period of From C orsi we can see that Ficino belonged to the charm ing-ugly variety
the 1450s and early 1460s, w ith w hich we are im m ediately concerned, the of m ale scholar: slight, som ew hat hunch-backed, a lanky, curly-headed
sources are m ore scanty. T h an k s to the recent work of A rth u r Field, how ­ blond w ith a lisp and a sta m m e r.27*H e was unw orldly though not ascetic,
ever, we can place Ficino w ith m ore confidence in an o th er, illum inating, sexless, given to m elancholic fits and, like m any children of doctors, a
m ilieu in add itio n to those of the h u m an ist school and the Florentine v aletu d in arian . Yet C orsi and other sources speak equally of his great
Studio.25 T h is is the world of the religious co n fraternity, the scuola or com- personal attractions. H e possessed no d oubt that vulnerable charm that
pagnia, w here lay persons, hu m an ists and scholastics m ixed freely w ith stam m erers often have. H e was m odest, gentle, delicate in his tastes,
priests and religious in com m on p u rsu it of a richer spiritual wisdom and fond of ironic jests, a good com panion w hen the lighter m ood was on
a deeper com m itm en t to the C h ristian life. Ficino was associated for a him . A t the sam e tim e, for all his in g ratiatin g and self-effacing ways, he
good p art of the 1450s w ith a co n fratern ity grouped aro u n d the elusive had a h ard core of independence which let him absorb influences w ithout
Lorenzo Pisano (ca. 1391-1465), a canon of the M edici church of San ever being fully m astered by them . T h ru st by his fa th e r’s profession and
Lorenzo. Pisano was probably from a fam ily of Pisan aristocrats and had by his own predilections into the com pany of his social superiors, he
had a scholastic education u n d e r E vangelista da Pisa, a lecturer at the m ain tain ed w hat m odern psychologists w ould no d o u b t call “ high ego-
A ugustinian school of S anto S pirito (who had also educated the fam ous b a rrie rs’’, or (in plainer language) he had an ability to shape his own
G ianozzo M an etti). H e had lectured on D an te at the F lorentine Studio m ind w ithout yielding to pressures for conform ity, as well as a strong
and was the a u th o r of a n u m b e r of sp iritual dialogues. T hese dialogues need to im press his own attitudes on others.
give a vivid picture of his intellectual tastes and of the high cultural circles H is ch aracter is of a piece w ith his religious sensibility. Ficino was not
in which he m oved. the guilt-and-despair type of C h ristian , longing equally for self-abase­
W hen Ficino knew him , Pisano was well over sixty an d the spiritual m en t an d divine approval. H is was rath er the sensibility of the ecstatic,
guide of an elite group of F lorentine religious and litterati to which Ficino
aspired to belong. T h ro u g h Pisano, Ficino w ould have com e in contact 26 The hagiographic and propagandistic features of Corsi’s biography were exposed in
with the m edieval trad itio n of spiritual friendship and w ith a platonizing Kristeller (1956), pp. 191-211. For the larger political context of the biography, see F.
Gilbert, “ Bernardo Rucellai and the Orti Oricellari,” J W C I 12 (1949): 101-131,
tradition of A u g u stin ian theology w hich seem ed to offer far m ore of intel­
reprinted in his History: Choice and Commitment (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), pp. 215-246.
lectual n o u rish m en t for religious persons than did contem porary Corsi’s life (second redaction) has most recently been edited in Marcel (1958), pp.
680-689; see also Kristeller in Ritom o, p. 181.
27 Corsi, ed. Marcel, p. 685: “ Statura fuit admodum brevi gracili corpore et aliquan-
ri See A. Field, “John Argyropoulos and the ‘Secret Teachings’ o f Plato,” in Sup- tulum in utrisque humeris gibboso. Lingua parumper haesitante atque in prolatu litterae
plerpentum Festivum, pp. 303-326. dumtaxat ‘S’ balbutiente, sed utrumque non sine gratia. Cruribus ac brachiis, sed
2'* Kristeller, The Philosophy oj Marsilio Ficino, tr. V. Conant (New York, 1943), pp. praecipue manibus oblongis. Facies illi obducta et quae mitem aspectum ac gratum
206-230, “ Internal Experience” . praeberet, color sanguineus. Capilli flavi ac crispantes et qui frontem sursum pro-
23 Origins, chapter 6; Field provides an account of Pisano’s life with further tenderent.” Sebastiano Gentile suggests to me that Ficino was something of a mammone,
bibliography. For confraternities in Florence, see R. F. E. Weissman, Ritual Brotherhood as for most of his life he seems to have he rented his house on Via S. Egidio (given to
in Renaissance Florence (New York, 1982). him by Cosimo) in order to live with his mother.
 278 P A R T IV FLORENCE 279

the prophet, the seer w ith a vision who strove to im press that vision b u t for some reason Ficino did not at this point in his life seek a benefice.
powerfully onto o th er souls. Ind eed , he claim ed to have inherited the gift T h e sources give us no wholly trustw orthy explanation for F icino’s aver­
of prophecy from his deeply religious m o th er, A lessandra; throughout sion from an ecclesiastical career, but they suggest som e intriguing
life he was subject to prophetic dream s an d evidently believed him self to possibilities.
possess the “ gift of in te rp re ta tio n ” of w hich St. Paul had spoken in I T h e re is evidence, in fact, that Ficino had some kind of religious crisis
C orin th ian s. D u rin g F lo ren ce’s w ar w ith N aples, for instance, he had a in the late 1450s w hich was connected w ith his read in g of Plato and
drehm in w hich the late K in g Alfonso of N aples appeared to his son Fer- L ucretius. W e know that Ficino had from earliest youth been attracted
dinando and spoke to him in an angelic language; Ficino, present at this to P latonic philosophy, w hich he had read in some of B ru n i’s tran sla­
collpquy th ro u g h divine seizure, was able to in terp ret A lfonso’s words in tions, (probably) U b erto D ecem b rio ’s version of the Republic, as well as
a letter to C ard in al G iovanni d ’A rag o n a as advice to F erd in an d to con­ in C ic e ro .30 M o re im p o rtan t, however, was the view of Plato he had im ­
clude a peace with Florence. H e also claim ed to be visited by the spirit bibed from his read in g of later L atin w riters who had them selves read
of the deceased C osim o d e ’M edici, visitations in w hich C osim o advised th eir Plato th ro u g h the filters of M iddle Platonic and N eoplatonic in ter­
him on scholarly m a tte rs.28 p retations. A ppro ach in g Plato thus through A ugustine, M acrobius,
C alcidius, and A puleius, Plato would have appeared in the guise of a
* * *
religious philosopher, and m ight well have offered Ficino the deeper
Ficiiio’s attitu d e of independence tow ards the various cultural influences u n d erstan d in g of his own religious experience that he h ad missed in his
operative upon him , w hen com bined w ith his pow erful religious sensibili­ study of A ristotle. W e know , at any rate, that Ficino, encouraged by
ty, was to b rin g about a p articu larly difficult crisis for him w hen the tim e C ristoforo L an d in o , set him self the task of piecing together from L atin
cam e to com m it him self to a career, a crisis which m ay have had deeper sources a fuller picture of P la to ’s philosophy, and produced in 1456 his
roots than the vocational crises of youth generally do. It was his charac­ Institutiones Platonicae disciplines, which, perhaps significantly, are no
ter, prejudices, and the lim its of his education which w ere responsible, longer extant.
it m ay be supposed, for his failure to b ind him self either to a career as Som e of F icin o ’s spiritual advisers, how ever, were ap parently alarm ed
a prbfessional h u m an ist secretary or as a scholastic magister. W e know by the tendency of his studies. In a dialogue by one of F icino’s m entors,
that schoolm astering, a career he had first tasted as private tu to r to Piero A ntonio degli Agli, w ritten in the later 1450s, Ficino him self appears as
d e ’ Pazzi, filled him w ith loathing, m ainly (to ju d g e from an invettiva an in terlo cu to r and is w arned by “ A n to n iu s” — who is clearly to be iden­
w ritten aro u n d 1454) because of the absence of any intellectual tified w ith A gli— to bew are the vanity and folly of studying pagan
stim u lu s.29 T h ro u g h his fa th e r’s clientele and the circle of Lorenzo thought. “ T a rry not in tu rn in g yourself back to the knowledge of G od,
Pisaho, fu rth erm o re, he h ad com e into contact w ith the flower of the and leave Plato an d others of his sort b eh in d !” 31* In several of the
Florentine aristocracy, and the taste for g ran d com pany so form ed m ay dialogues of L orenzo Pisano there are heated debates betw een older
account for his refusal to go back to the m iddle-class career as a doctor theologians (including Agli), “ sem ipagan” scholastics, and youths in­
for which he had been educated. A young m an thus situated w ould in the clined to p agan literatu re (including one who is alm ost certainly Ficino)
fifteenth cen tu ry norm ally have ended up in the C h urch; his fath er’s con­
nexion w ith C osim o alone w ould have g u aran teed decent preferm ent;
30 See App. 18A, Gentile (1983), and Suppl. 2: 85 for Ficino’s knowledge of Bruni and
28 O p . , p. 816: “ Alfonsus Rex felicissimus auus tuus, uenerande pater, nuper Fer- Decembrio as early as the later 1450s. Ficino quotes Bruni s translation of the Phaedrus
dinarido patri tuo felicissimo regi oraculum effudit ex alto angelica lingua; Marsilius in a letter to Antonio Serafico of 1454 (Kristeller [1956], pp. 146-150) and cites the
Ficinus (nescio quo spiritu raptus) interfuit, audiuit, seruauit, atque oraculum ipsum Republic in his De Laudtbus philosophiae written in the 1450s, apparently before he had learn­
angelica tunc ab Alfonso lingua pronunciatum, ipse in linguam humanam tibi hodie ed Greek (O p., pp. 757-759; see Suppl. 1:C). In the latter work he also cites Proculi
transtulit.” For Ficino’s post mortem relations with Cosimo, see Della Torre, p. 456f.; for Theologia which could be either the Elements of Theology in Moerbeke’s widely-diffused
other; remarks about his prophetic powers, see Suppl. 1: LXXXVI. translation or (less plausibly) the Platonic Theology in the new translation made for
29 For Ficino’s tutoring of Piero de’ Pazzi, see the article of S. J. Hough cited in note Cusanus by Piero Balbi (Part III, note 245).
13, above; for his early invettiva which complains about the rudimentary subjects 31 Antonio degli Agli, De mystica statera, Naples, BN, MS VIII F 9, f. 33r: Ad hanc
pedagogues are forced to teach and their menial status, see E. Cristiani, “ Una inedita [Dei scientiam] itaque Platone aliisque huiusmodi relictis convertere te non differas.
invettiva giovanile di Marsilio Ficino,’’ Rinascimento , ser. 2, 6 (1966): 209-222. (Quoted by Field in Origins, Chapters 6 and 7).
 280 P A R T IV FLORENCE 281

about the value of pagan philo so p h y .32 A nd in the background, it seems, tion, and was eager to explore new form s of religious wisdom and ex­
was P r . F ecin o ’s friend A n to n in u s, the aged archbishop of Florence and perience which m ight revivify the spiritual life of C h ristendom . W e know
a well-known opponent of h u m an ism , w ho p u t pressure on the young that he had, even in later life, an alm ost P ro testan t contem pt for “ o u t­
Ficirjo to subord in ate his interests in p ag an philosophy to the teachings w ard cerem onies” , superstitions and ritu a ls.34 In one place he even goes
and requirem ents of C h ristian dogm a. W hile the average hum anist so far as to suggest (through the m outh of Plato) that the “ rite ” accord­
m ight sim ply have ignored o r m ade light o f these ecclesiastical w arnings, ing to w hich one w orships is less im p o rtan t than the spirit in which one
the young Ficino was too pious and sensitive not to take them seriously. w orships, and that even the w orship of daem ons (sc. the pagan gods)
As in the case of Pletho, it is difficult to know w hat lies behind these could have spiritual benefits.35 A lthough one can find traces of the same
criticism s of the young F icin o ’s studies. T h e view of D ella T o rre and spiritualism in C usanus, Bessarion, and o ther contem poraries, it was an
M arcel, that Ficino was in this period flirting with “ ratio n alism ” , is outlook which could easily u n d ercu t the role of the institutional church
clearly anachronistic (unless one gives an idiosyncratic m eaning to the in the m aintenance of discipline and the dispensing of g race.36 W e know
w ord “ ratio n alism ” ), and the old view th at Ficino was tem pted into from his letters that Ficino regarded m any of the religious practices
“ p a g an ism ” is equally suspect. T h e evidence, how ever, does not perm it recom m ended by the ecclesiastical authorities of his day to be productive
us simply to dism iss the accounts of F icin o ’s “ spiritual crisis” as sheer of spiritual tepidity and suitable only to mulierculae. H is attitu d e to the
invention. T h e most plausible in te rp re ta tio n of the episode is that Ficino, pagan divinities was playfully am biguous, but it is clear he found the con­
like Pletho before him , was m ore o f a heretic than a pagan. T h ere is no tem p o rary fashion for syncretism deeply attractive. Even m ore subver­
evidence that he gave up C h ristian ity , b u t at the same tim e it is clear that sive were F icino’s attem pts to revive H erm etic m agic, which challenged
he found the religious philosophy of P latonism m ore sophisticated and a m onopoly the C h u rch had tried to m ain tain since St. Paul ordered the
em otionally satisfying than the trad itio n al forms of institutional C h ris­ Ephesians to b u rn their m agic books. It was for m agic, in fact, that
tianity he was fam iliar w ith from his provincial boyhood. If he had al­
lowed him self to m anifest heterodox attitu des before his religious 34 See, for example, Op., pp. 1134, 1386, 1402, 1508-1510, 1516, 1520 (to take only
superiors, it is likely that th eir reactions w ould have led to ju st such a examples from the Commentaria in Platonem).
35 O p ., p. 1510 (Arg. in Lgg. VIII) = Platonis opera 1491, f. 300ra: “ Deinde Plato
crisis as Ficino seems to have u n d erg o n e. T h e result of F icino’s crisis, on prudentissimus iudicabat, et si possent impuri spiritus homines per oracula fallere, saepe
this view, w ould then be a renew ed co m m itm ent to the harm onization tamen abstractas ob diuinam reuerentiam a corpore mentes, quasi iam puras a puris
of C h ristian and pagan w isdom , perh ap s inspired by the exam ple of St. subito numinibus corripi, et quemadmodum ligna quae casu exsiccauit uentus saepe mox
natura ignis accendit, similiter posse animos ex religioso quodam ritu, quamuis apud sa-
T h o m as A quinas, whose Summa contra gentiles A rchbishop A ntoninus had pientes minus probato, perfunctos occultis modis meliori numine corripi, ut qui nes-
put into the young m a n ’s h a n d s .33 cientes quomodo in mentem ipsam seorsum a sensibus ascenderunt, ex alto iam feliciter
But w hatever the religious experiences Ficino underw ent in the later accendantur. Neque tarn attendendum Plato uult quo ritu colas diuina, quam cuius
gratia colas. Si enim id summi omnium regis [an epithet of God used by Plato in Ep.
1450s, it w ould be w rong to conclude th at he becam e thereafter a docile II, 312E] gratia, aeternorumque bonorum desiderio feceris, probabile est undecunque et
conservative in his theology. Ficino alw ays thought of him self as an o r­ quomodocunque coeperis, te quandoque per eiusmodi uenerationem ad summum pro-
thodox C h ristian , but there are orthodoxies and orthodoxies. H is by no pius accedentem uel immenso illius lumine circumfundi uel exuberanti saltern bonitate
seruari.”
m eans sprang from a w illing identification w ith ecclesiastical tradition or 36 I agree with Allen (1984a) that Wind presents Florentine Platonism (and Origenism
an uncritical acceptance of established scholastic definitions. In fact, he for that matter) in too conspiratorial a light. Yet it is clear that the effect, if not the inten­
m ain tain ed in later life his stu b b o rn independence and speculative en ter­ tion, of Ficino’s Christian Platonism is ultimately to undermine the authority of the
clerical caste, and Neoplatonic concordism, for all its eirenic objectives, could be carried
prise, as well as a gentle strain of anticlericalism . T h e latter tendency he to the point of abolishing the historical identity of Christianity, as seventeenth-century
kept well u n d e r control, especially after he had him self begun to enjoy Jesuit missionaries to China learned to their cost. According to Wind, Pagan Mysteries,
preferm ent as a canon and priest. Y et it is clear that Ficino was for most p. 220f., and Garin (1969), pp. 288, 293, concordism was encouraged by the situation
at the Council of Union at Florence; periods of ecumenism, it seems, always give rise
of his life chafing against the fences of orthodoxy built by m edieval tradi- to theological license. The most striking example of Cusanus’ attempts to diminish the
distance between different religions comes in his Cnbratio Alkorani, where he tries to show
the common ground between Christianity and Islam; see Nicolai de Cusa Opera omnia, ed.
32 Ibid., Chapter 6. L. Hagemann, (Hamburg, 1986), p. 11. A similar attitude to Islam is found in Ficino’s
33 The evidence for the “ crisis” and various possible interpretations of it are discussed De chnstiana religione (O p., p. 17), where he says the Moslems are rather to be regarded
in App. 16. as heretical Christians than as members of a distinct religion.
282 P A R T IV FLORENCE 283

Ficino came u n d e r the notice of the In q u isitio n in the 1480s, although the higher pagan theology th an the early R enaissance had ever been able
he was able to garn er enough influence in R o m e to have the charge d ro p ­ to fo rm .40
ped ;37 in the next century, G io rd an o B ru n o ’s F icinian H erm etism would By the 1480s, indeed, Ficino had w orked out an elaborate account of
swallow up his C h ristian ity alm ost entirely. T h ere are also F icino’s the historical, m etaphysical and functional relations betw een the ancient
vacillations on the subject o f ju d icial astrology, vacillations which in ­ theology, N eoplatonism , and the Ju d a e o -C h ristia n tradition. In F icino’s
dicate his interest in form s of astrology not approved by the C h u rc h .38 historical vision there were two key divisions. T h e first was a m ajor divi­
In short, while endeavoring to rem ain orth o d o x , Ficino found him self a t­ sion of all of history into a period of “ in sp iratio n ” and a period of “ in ter­
tracted by the very forms of pag an religious belief and practice which the p re ta tio n ” . Before C h rist, G od had given laws and m ysteries only to a
church of the C o n stan tin ian age had been m ost eager to eradicate. few inspired m inds, such as M oses and the prophets am ong the Jew s, and
G iven his personal history an d religious outlook, then, it is easy to Plato and the o ther ancient theologians am ong the G entiles. T hese laws
understand why Ficino should have been so h au n ted by the problem of an d m ysteries had been w ritten dow n, often in a poetic or gnom ic
C h ristian ity ’s relationship w ith an cien t relig io n.39 It is significant that fashion, and were generally too sublim e to be fully und ersto o d — even,
already in the m id-1450s— pro b ab ly even before he cam e in contact with som etim es, by the prisci them selves. T his situation ha'd been rem edied by
P leth o ’s w ritings— Ficino h ad constru cted from patristic and pagan the com ing of C hrist, “ the idea and exem plar of the v irtu e s” , the “ living
N eoplatonic sources the notion of an “ ancient theology’’. F icino’s a n ­ book of divine philosophy” . In C hrist was revealed the fullness of the
cient theology from one po in t o f view sim ply restated w hat hum anists divine m ysteries, thus beginning the second great period of hum an
since the fourteenth centu ry h ad tried to establish: that the best pagan history, the period of “ in te rp re ta tio n ” . W ith the com ing of C hrist his
m inds had been far above polytheistic superstitions, and had adhered to disciples and followers were able to m ake sense of the law and the pro­
an esoteric philosophico-religious w isdom w hich they concealed from the phets. In a sim ilar fashion, the N eoplatonic philosophers, F icino’s
uninitiated to avoid persecution an d vulgarization of thought. It had platonici, were able to use the best C h ristian in terp reters, especially
secretly p rep ared the pagans for C h ristia n ity as the Jew s had been D ionysius the A reopagite ( “ Platonicae disciplinae culm en, et Chris-
prepared by the religious w isdom of M oses. But though clearly indebted tianae theologiae co lu m en ” ) to in terp ret their own gentile theologians,
to the early h u m anist trad itio n , Ficino was the first scholar w ith sufficient especially P la to .41
knowledge o f G reek and of theology to devote him self in a serious way
to recovering the hidden w isdom of pagan s. T h ro u g h his study of ancient 40 For the development of Ficino’s conception of the ancient theology, see App. 17.
41 De Christiana religione xxii = O p . , p. 25: ‘Tudaei ante Christi aduentum (ut plurimum)
religion Ficino developed a m u ch m ore historically sophisticated view of legis Mosaicae Prophetarumque suorum superficiem attingebant, Christus autem eius-
que discipuli, perfectissime docuerunt profundos diuinae mentis sensus linceis, immo
diuinis oculis penetrare, quod etiam Iudaeus Philo testatur .... Prisca gentilium
37 The episode is described by P. O. Kristeller in “ Marsilio Ficino and the Roman theologia, in qua Zoroaster, Mercurius, Orpheus, Aglaophemus, Pythagoras con-
Curia,” Humamstica Lovaniensia (Studia in honorem Rev.i adm. dni. Dni. losaei Ruysschaert, senserunt, tota in Platonis nostri uoluminibus continetur. Mysteria huiusmodi Plato in
ed. J. IJsewijn) 31VA (1985): 83-97. It is a considerable simplification to follow Frances epistolis uaticinatur tandem post multa saecula hominibus manifesta fieri posse. Quod
Yates ( Giordano Bruni and the Hermetic Tradition [London, 1964], pp. 44-82) in describing quidem ita contigit, nam Philonis Numeniique temporibus primum coepit mens
Ficino’s magic simply as Hermetic; his sources were considerably more varied, as has priscorum theologorum in Platonicis chartis intelligi, uidelicet statim post Apostolorum
been shown by B. P. Copenhaver in a recent series of articles: ‘‘Scholastic Philosophy Apostolicorumque discipulorum conciones et scripta. Diuino enim Christianorum
and Renaissance Magic in the De vita of Marsilio Ficino,” R Q 37 (1984): 523-554; ‘‘Re­ lumine usi sunt Platonici ad diuinum Platonem interpretandum. Hinc est quod magnus
naissance Magic and Neoplatonic Philosophy: Ennead 4.3-5 in Ficino’s De vita coelitus com­ Basilius et Augustinus probant, Platonicos Ioannis Euangelistae mysteria sibi usur-
p a ra n d ” in Ritomo, 2:351-369; ‘‘Hermes Trismegistus, Proclus, and the Question of a pauisse. Ego certe reperi praecipua Numenii, Philonis, Plotini, Iamblici, Proculi
Theory of Magic in the Renaissance” , forthcoming in the proceedings of a Folger mysteria ab Ioanne, Paulo, Hierotheo, Dionysio Areopagita accepta fuisse. Quicquid
Library conference (March, 1982) on Hermes Trismegistus; and ‘‘Iamblichus, Synesius enim de mente diuina angelisque et ceteris ad theologiam spectantibus magnificum dix-
and (he Chaldaean Oracles in Marsilio Ficino’s De Vita libn tres: Hermetic Magic or ere, manifeste ab illis usurpauerunt.” See Op., pp. 46, 873-874, 956 and 1537 for other
Neoplatonic Magic?” in Supplementum Festivum , pp. 441-455. details of this account. For the analogy between the ancient theologians and the Old
38 See D. P. Walker, ‘‘Ficino and Astrology,” in Ritomo, pp. 341-349; and C. V. Testament writers (both ‘‘inspired” without necessarily having the fullness of truth), see
Kaske, ‘‘Ficino’s Shifting Attitude Towards Astrology in the De vita coelitus comparanda, Walker, pp. 80-81. In his Theologia platomca (ed. Marcel, 3: 148) Ficino makes the further
the Letter to Poliziano, and the Apologia to the Cardinals,” in ibid., pp. 371-395, with point that Plato had in a sense summed up the gentile tradition of ancient theology: ‘‘In
references to the earlier literature. rebus his, quae ad theologiam pertinent, sex olim summi theologi consenserunt, quorum
39 The central text here is the De Christiana religione, for which see Trinkaus, Image and primus fuisse traditur Zoroaster, Magorum caput, secundus Mercurius Trismegistus,
Likeness, 2:683-721. princeps sacerdotum Aegyptiorum. Mercurio successit Orpheus. Orphei sacris initiatus
284 P A R T IV FLORENCE 285

S up erim p o sed upon this large division o f history into “ in sp ired ” and T h ere is, then, in the history of religion a double m ovem ent. First,
“ in te rp re ta tiv e ” periods was a n o th e r division into successive epochs of religious know ledge, originally confined to true lovers of wisdom , is
religious w isdom and epochs of “ v eilin g ” . W h at distinguishes the form er m ade m anifest, through C h rist, to even the hum blest m inds. Secondly,
from (he la tte r is th at in the form er, religion an d philosophy are conjoin­ religious language moves from a m ysterious and poetic m ode of
ed, while in the latter they are su n d e re d , an d religion is allowed to expression44 to a clearer an d m ore broadly com prehensible one. T h e gift
decline into c o rru p t superstitio n and e rro r. A fter the original period of of the pow er of in terp retatio n , again through C h ris t,45 perm its lesser
inspiratio n , for instance, te rm in a tin g w ith P lato am ong the gentiles and m inds to participate in the w isdom form erly confined to the few capable
the last p ro p h ets am ong the Jew s, D ivine P rovidence had allowed both of divine gnosis. Ficino thus in his m ature account of the ancient theology
Jew an d G entile to fall into ignorance a n d superstition. T h e com ing of com bines the P lethonian view of theological history, where religious
C hrisf h ad b ro u g h t w isdom and religion to gether once m ore, p re ­ gnosis is progressively co rrupted over tim e by an ig n o ran t clergy, with
em inently in the w ork of St. P aul, St. J o h n the E vangelist and D ionysius a P au lin e and E usebian view, w here revelation in C h rist m akes m anifest
the A reopagite. A fter the tim e of D ionysius, how ever, ow ing to a the tru e m eaning of the m ysteries of the Jew s an d the G entiles. T he
m ysterious “ calam ity in the C h u rc h ” , religious w isdom had again been h u m an ist vision of a revival of antiquity is then superim posed upon the
“ hidden aw ay ” . It had then been recovered, not by C hristian s, b ut by whole and given a new providential m eaning. T h e result is a history of
the platomci w ho read Paul, J o h n , H iero th eu s and D io n y siu s.42 It was religion w hich stands G eorge of T re b iz o n d ’s account of the Platonic con­
throu g h the platomci that the g reat C h ristia n theologians of the patristic spiracy on its head. For Ficino, Platonism , instead of being the nemesis
period, especially O rig en an d A ugustine, h ad been able to b rin g back the of C h risten d o m , is p art of G o d ’s providential design for the hu m an race,
salutary trad itio n o f religious w isd o m .43 A fter the patristic period (d u rin g a philosophia perennis, springing intertw ined with C hristian ity from the
the m edieval period), religious w isdom h ad again been veiled, b ut was sam e soil of religious experience; each of them lends support to the other
now being b ro u g h t to life once m ore, by D ivine P rovidence, through the in their grow th tow ards perfection and tru th .
w ork of M arsilio Ficino. Ficino also produced, late in life,46 a m etaphysical account of the rela­
tions betw een pagan religion and C hristianity. H e had always felt that
the religious im pulse, w herever it was found, was a good one and pleas­
fuit Agjaophemus. Aglaophemo successit in theologia Pythagoras, Pythagorae Plato, qui ing to G od out som etim e in the later 1480s he cam e to express this no­
uniuer$am eorum sapientiam suis litteris comprehendit, auxit, illustrauit. ” For the tion in term s of one of his central philosophical conceptions, that of the
Platonic corpus as a collection of early wisdom (not all of it necessarily Plato’s) see below,
p. 339j and Allen (1984a), pp. 566-567. primum in aliquo genere.47 A ccording to this conception each species w ithin
42 O p., p. 925: “ Mihi certe nec ulla scientiae forma est gratiosior quam platonica, ne-
que forma haec usquam magis quam in Dionysio ueneranda. Amo equidem Platonem
in lamblicho, admiror in Plotino, in Dionysio ueneror. Saepe uero suspicor antiquiores 44 Ficino elsewhere repeats Bessarion's idea that the ancient philosophers and theolo­
Plotind Platonicos, Ammonium atque Numenium [Eunumium ed. ] aut his forte priores, gians hid their insights in obscure language to protect themselves from the hostile incom­
legisse Dionysii libros antequam nescio qua calamitate Ecclesiae delitescerent. Atque il- prehension of the vulgar; Socrates’ murder by the Athenian democracy is interpreted, as
linc in Plotinum et Iamblichum Dionysii scintillas uere Platonicas fuisse transfusas, unde in Justin Martyr, as the result of too much plain speaking about the corruptions of popular
tantus sit ignis accensus. See Della Torre, pp. 783-788; Allen (1984a), p. 557. For the religion.
disastrous separation of wisdom and religion, which Ficino saw mirrored in his own time, 45 A better interpretation of the Mosaic and gentile ancient theologies was possible be­
see below, p. 289; for the corruption of gentile religion, see the De chnstiana religione, cause Christ, the idea and exemplar of the virtues, completed by his example and teaching
xxii = Op., pp. 24-25. The “ veiling” of the Platonic mysteries during the time of the the genus of in stitu tio : see De Christiana religione xxi, xxiii = O p ., pp. 23-26. The notion that
Skeptical Academy is hinted at by Ficino in his preface to Plotinus, O p., p. 1537, and Christ is a visible instantiation of the perfect essence of a genus is clearly connected with
is based on St. Augustine, Contra Acad. Ill.xvii-xix and Epist. 118, reinforced (probably) the doctrine of prim um in aliquo genere, for which see the discussion immediately below.
by Prpclus’ Platonic Theology 1.1, ed. Saffrey-Westerink, 1:7; see also their note 2 on p. 46 I have not found this metaphysical interpretation in the De Christiana religione or any
131. The theory of “ veilings” also permits Ficino to detach Aristotle from the earlier of Ficino’s discussions of the nature of religion previous to the two passages cited in note 48.
theologians who were still trailing clouds of glory; see p. 357 below. 47 The best account of this doctrine is in Kristeller, The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino, pp.
43 See for example O p. , p. 956: “ Quamobrem Aurelius Augustinus quondam Platoni- 146-170. For its historical background, see A. K. Lloyd, “ Primum in genere: The
cus et iam de Christiana professione deliberans, cum in hos Platonicorum libros incidisset Philosophical Background,” Diotima 4(1976): 32-36, who emphasizes the influence of Pro-
cognouissetque Christiana per irnitationem ab his probata, Deo gratias egit redditusque clus, and E. P. Mahoney, “ Metaphysical Foundations of the Hierarchy of Being Accord­
iam est ad Christiana recipienda propensior” . The reference is to Con/. V II.9.13. For ing to Some Late Medieval and Renaissance Philosophers,” in Philosophies of Existence, ed.
the "unveiling” ot Platonism through Divine Providence, Ficino and the Medici, see P. Morewedge (New York, 1982), pp. 165-257, who emphasizes the influence of the
note 52. medieval tradition.
 286 P A R T IV FLORENCE 287

a given genus is graded hierarchically, culm in ating in a highest m em ber addition, P la to ’s high reputation as a philosopher w ould help give C h ris­
w hich expresses in its purest form the essential content of the genus and tianity m ore intellectual credibility am ong m en w ho valued ancient
therefore acts as the cause an d principle for all other m em bers of the pagan philosophy and despised the summule fratesche p ro duced by m odern
genps. C h ristian ity , as Ficino said in a letter to Jo h a n n e s P annonius C h ristian theologians.51 Ficino is perhaps thinking here of how O rigen
(1484/88) and restated in his preface to P lotinus (1492), was the highest and A ugustine were led to C hristianity through P latonism ; or of how
species in the genus of relig io n .48 So although the pagan religions were Jew s w ere som etim es led to C hristianity through the “ ancient theology”
historically p rio r, C h ristian ity is still the highest instantiation of religion of M oses; or perhaps he was thinking of his own experience. A different,
and is, furth erm o re, the “ ca u se ” of all o th er religions. A nd if the princi­ som ew hat co n trary view is given in the preface to his translation of Plato.
ple df plenitude holds tru e, there should be religions which are nearly H ere it is said D ivine Providence provided C hristian ity with Platonism
identical to C h ristian ity and others w hich h ardly deserve to be classed as in o rd er to keep “ the professors of wisdom and elo q u en ce” w ithin the
religions at all.49 fold; w ithout some such intellectual backbone, the educated classes of
But if C h ristian ity contains the fullest revelation of divine m ysteries society would drift away from the faith, thus destroying that vital union
and is the highest m em b er of the genus of religion, why then need we pay of pow er and wisdom so necessary to the health of society 52 In this ver­
atten tio n any longer to w hat was said by ancient theologians such as sion, Platonic philosophy becom es som ething m ore th an the handm aid
Plato? Ficino gives us several answ ers to this question, not all of them of theology; it threatens, indeed, to becom e a special esoteric form ot
entirely consistent w ith each oth er. O n e answ er is im plied by w hat has C hristian ity for an intellectual elite.
ju s t been said ab o u t the m u tu al su p p o rt w hich the philosophia perennis of In all these explanations, the com m on elem ent is Ficino s insistence
P latonism and the revealed religion o f C h ristian ity had in ancient times that the ancient philosophical religion has not been su p eran n u ated by the
offered each other. C o n te m p o ra ry C h risten d o m , intellectually and advent of C h ristian ity . Indeed, as we shall see, P latonic theology for
m orally im poverished as it was, could draw in spiration from an age when Ficino was a divine m edicine sent by God to renew the spiritual health
w isdom and piety had been aptly conjoined; the pia philosophia could be of C h risten d o m ; the student of pagan theology, far from showing an im ­
the in stru m en t for form ing anew a docta religio.50 A lternatively, Platonic pious curiositas, was in fact applying a m edicam ent necessary for the con­
theology could be a bait o r a lu re to draw skeptical youths back to true tinued existence of the C h ristian faith. W ise C h ristian s m ay no more
religion: as a low er species in the genus of religion, it was m ore accessible ab an d o n the ancient theologians of the gentiles th an they m ay abandon
to them in th eir debased condition th an the pure essence of religion. In the law and the prophets of the O ld T estam ent.
* * *
48 Op. >P- 871 (letter to Pannonius; for the date, see Suppl. 1:cii): “ Acuta enim ingenia
soli se ratione committunt, cumque a religioso quodam Philosopho accipiunt religionem,
subito communem libenter admittunt. Qua quidem imbuti ad meliorem religionis speciem sub
genere Comprehensam facilius traducuntur. Itaque non absque diuina prouidentia uolente 51 See the text quoted in note 48, above. See also a letter to Pico (O p . , p. 930) where
omnes pro singulorum ingenio ad se mirabiliter reuocare, factum est, ut pia quaedam Ficino hails Pico as a “ fisher of men” for having used Plato as a net to draw Averrois'ts
Philosophia quondam et apud Persas sub Zoroastre, et apud Aegyptios sub Mercurio and Epicureans back to Christianity, on which see also Allen (1986), pp. 437-439, 448,
nasceretur, utrobique sibimet consona. Nutriretur deinde apud Thraces sub Orpheo at- 454; Allen (1987), pp. 433-434. At Op. p. 855 Ficino says that the whole purpose of his
que Aiglaophemo. Adolesceret quoque mox < su b > Pythagora apud Graecos et Italos. Platonic translations is the conversion of “ acutissima quaeque ingenia quae soli divinae
Tandem vero adiuo Platone consummaretur Athenis.’’ The account in the Plotinus pref­ legis authoritati haud facile cedunt.”
ace, Q p., p. 1537, is almost identically worded. 52 O p., p. 1128 = Platonis opera 1491, sign, alv: “ Diuina prouidentia fortiter attingens
49 J'his point is sometimes neglected by those who have written on Ficino’s conception omnia suauiterque disponens, magnanime Laurenti, statuit religionem sanctam non
of natiiral religion. It is not true that Ficino conceives of the Christian religion as nothing solum prophetis et sibyllis sacrisque armare doctoribus, uerumetiam pia [uia Op. \
more than the best among a generally admirable bevy of religious cults. It is highly quadam elegantique philosophia singulariter exornare, ut ipsa pietas omnium origo
misleading to refer to Ficino’s views on natural religion as “ ecumenical” in any sense bonorum tarn secura tandem inter omnes sapientiae et eloquentiae professores incederet
resembling the modern one. Ficino’s attitude to contemporary Judaism and Islam, for quam tuta penes domesticos conquiescit. Oportebat enim religionem (quae unica est ad
instance, was considerably more negative than his attitude to the ancient pagan religions, felicitatem uia) non rudioribus tantum hominibus, uerumetiam pentioribus communem
which of course offered little real threat to contemporary Christianity. On the other hand, fore. Qua quidem duce omnes ad beatitudinem, cuius gratia nati sumus et ad quam con-
Ficino’s attacks on the “ corruptions” of Talmudic scholars (De Christiana religione xxii - sequendam communi studio laboramus, facilius tutiusque peruenire possemus [possimus
O p . , p. 24) cannot be construed as an unusual departure from his “ ecumenism” , special­ O p.]. Itaque Deus omnipotens statutis temporibus diuinum Platonis animum ab alto
ly motivated by antisemitic attitudes. dimisit uita ingenio eloquio mirabili religionem sacram apud omnes gentes illustratu-
50 De chnstiana religione i = O p . , p. 1. rum.
288 P A R T IV FLORENCE 289

W ith his vision of the ancient theology of P latonism , then, Ficino O ye happy ages, who preserved this heavenly bond of wisdom and
ultim ately fashioned a religious wisdom w hich was (in his view) m ore clas­ religion, a bond especially close among the Hebrews and [early] Christians!
O ye too unfortunate ages in which has transpired this miserable divorce
sical, m ore pious, and m ore intellectually sophisticated th an the A ristote­ and separation of Pallas and Themis, that is, of wisdom and moral dignity.
lian philosophy of the schools or the d ogm atic syllogisms of the religious ... For learning has been largely handed over to the profane, whence it
orders. T h e ancient theology satisfied F icin o ’s y earn in g for esoteric becomes the greatest instrument of iniquity and moral license, and is rather
w isdom , an d at the sam e tim e provided a pow erful justification against to be called malicious cunning than religious learning. Meanwhile the most
critics of his philosophical studies who d oubted the utility of pagan precious pearls of religion are often pawed by ignoramuses who trample
them under foot like swine. ... Thus the former know not truth in its purity,
theology in C h ristia n society. But the resolution of F icin o ’s difficulties did which, being divine, enlightens only the eyes of the pious, while the latter
m ore th an sim ply perm it him to p ursue his private tastes unim peded by fail even to worship God rightly to the fullness of their ability, with the
religious scruples. It also led him to find his vocation as a social being, to result that they regulate sacred things in ignorance of things human and
create a role for him self in aristocratic F lorentine society w hich, w hatever divine. How long can we bear the miserable lot of this iron age? O ye
citizens of your celestial fatherland, o ye inhabitants of the earth, let us
its co n tem p o rary analogues, was in certain respects absolutely unique.
Finally, I beg of you, liberate philosophy, the divine gift of God, from impie­
F inding his vocation was for Ficino evidently the result of serious ty, if we can—and we can if we will—, [and] let us redeem holy religion,
m ed itatio n on the character and tendency o f co n tem p o rary education and as far as strength permits, from abominable ignorance. I therefore exhort
cultu re; it is indeed not wholly in ap p ro p riate to apply to him the m odern and implore all philosophers to reach out and embrace religion Firmly, and
title o f “ cu ltu re c ritic’’. H e shared the view of a n u m b e r of his contem ­ all priests to devote themselves diligently to the study of legitimate
poraries th at the kinds of education available in Florence had hitherto wisdom.55*
been generally shallow, especially as regards philosophy. A lam anno B runi, in the first half of the Q u attro cen to , had been inspired by classical
R in u ccin i, an older contem porary of Ficino who was a stu d en t of his rival an tiq u ity to jo in wisdom to eloquence for the reform of the state; Ficino,
A rgyropoulos, w rote in a fam ous letter th at m en who had sought an w riting half a century later, looked to the classical past for the model of
education in the first half of the Q u a ttro c e n to had been satisfied with the a religion w hich would join wisdom and faith. Faith w ithout the aid of
m erest tin ctu re of ethics; only in his tim e, in the g eneration that cam e to philosophy declined into superstition, causing the best m inds to abandon
m a tu rity in the 1450s, had m en o th er th an m edical doctors and it. Ficino, thinking perhaps of his own youth, th ought the need for a
theologians realized the need for a know ledge of n atu ral philosophy and philosophical religion was especially critical am ong young m en. C hildren
m etap h y sics.53 Ficino agreed, but for him the new im pulse to acquire a and old m en w ere naturally religious, b ut w hen
philosophical ed ucation properly arose, not from an aristocratic desire for
in adolescence reason is awakened, it naturally demands reasons and causes
self-perfection, as was the case with R in u ccin i and his friend D onato Ac- for everything [and] if [adolescents] at this age either follow lines of inquiry
ciaiuoli, b u t (characteristically) from the needs of a m atu re religious or fall into discussions in which the causes of things are carefully examined,
m in d . Indeed, for Ficino, the great need o f F lorentine society in his day they develop skepticism about matters which they find inexplicable. It is
was for w isdom : wisdom in political life and, especially, wisdom in
55 O p . , p. 1: “ O felicia saecula, quae diuinam hanc sapientiae religionisque copulam,
religious life.54 praesertim apud Hebraeos Christianosque, integram seruauistis. O saecula tandem
T h e evil state to which religion had been b rought th ro u g h its neglect nimium infelicia, quando Palladis Themidisque (id est, sapientiae et honestatis) et
of philosophical wisdom is the them e of F ic in o ’s im passioned prologue to separatio et diuortium miserabile contigit. ... Doctrina enim magna ex parte ad pro-
phanos translata est, unde ut plurimum iniquitatis euasit et lasciuiae instrumentum ac
his De chnstiana religione( 1473/4), w ritten ju st after he had becom e a p rie st. malitia dicenda est potius quam scientia. Margaritae autem religionis preciosissimae
C o m p a rin g his own age to those h ap p ier ages w hen H ebrew , G entile, and saepe tractantur ab ignorantibus atque ab his tanquam suibus conculcantur. ... Ita neque
early C h ristia n theologians had been philosophers as well as priests, he illi sincere ueritatem intelligunt, quae tanquam diuina solis piorum oculis illucescit, ne­
que isti quantum in eis est recte vel Deum colunt, ut sacra gubernant diuinarum
w rote: humanarumque rerum prorsus ignari. Quandiu duram et miserabilem hanc ferrei saeculi
sortem sustinebimus? O uiri celestis patriae ciues incolaeque terrae, liberemus obsecro
33 See the letter to Roberto Salviati in Alamanno Rinuccini. Letlere ed oraziom, ed. V. R. quandoque philosophiam, sacrum Dei munus, ab impietate, si possumus possumus
Giustiniani (Florence, 1953), pp. 188-189. The rise of the new interest in philosophy is autem, si uolumus—, religionem sanctam pro uiribus ab execrabili in scit< i> a
extensively chronicled in Field, Origins. redimamus. Hortor lgitur omnes atque precor philosophos quidem, ut religionem uel ca-
34 For Ficino’s conception of wisdom generally, see E. F. Rice, Jr., The Renaissance Idea pessant penitus uel attingant, sacerdotes autem, ut legitimae sapientiae studiis diligenter
of Wisdom (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), pp. 58-68. incumbant.”
290 P A R T IV FLORENCE 291

then that they, mostly, turn their back on religion (unless they happen to poisoning the wells of spiritual reform . Ig n o ran t priests, calling for
entrust themselves to [religious orders] or to the advice of their elders). This reform through “ sim ple p reaching of the faith ’’, only m ade things worse
is because the explanation for divine things is extremely recherche, [and] by failing to adm it the p ro b le m .57 H u m an ist teachers did not possess the
can scarcely be grasped even after long and meticulous inquiry with a
purified mind. Adolescents are not yet capable of this sort of reasoning, and philosophical know ledge to prevent religious decay, and those who did,
since they are skeptical of what is (to them) inexplicable, if they are the sort the university teachers, cultivated an attitude of detachm ent from their
to rely on their own judgm ent, they neglect religion. Some, whose pride texts which m ade scholastic authorities ineffective as instrum ents of
and incontinence confirm them in their views, give themselves up to m oral ed u catio n .58*T h u s all the m edicines society possessed to m aintain
Aristippean pleasures, esteeming religion to be nothing but old wives’
its spiritual health had failed of their purpose; religion, philosophy,
tales.56
poetry, and eloquence had tu rn ed every one to its own way, ignorant of
Ficiilo was aw are, of course, th at a ttem p ts had been m ade in the golden the true good. W as it any w onder that the jo ints of society were w eaken­
age of scholasticism to com bine theological doctrine and philosophy to ing, that factions, plots, and popular unrest threatened the body politic?
produce a unified w isdom — he was, for instance, fam iliar w ith Aqui- T h in k in g (as so often) in m edical term s, Ficino saw religion as the soul,
nas— but a sim ple revival of the T h o m istic project (such as was a ttem p ­ and m oral virtue as the spirit, which regulated the body of civil society.
ted by S avonarola and others later in the century) was not for him a But that soul an d that spirit could retain control over the body only so
possible solution. T h e aristocratic youths w hom Ficino w anted to influ­ long as the spiritual foods upon which it fed were them selves healthy. If
ence had refined literary tastes an d h ad been taught by four generations that spiritual d iet— divine and hu m an know ledge—was to lose its n u tri­
of hum anists to look u pon scholastic L atin with derision. H e had him self tional and m edicinal virtues, it would be only a m atter of tim e before the
absorbed the hum anist p rejudice th at A risto tle’s philosophy was less ser­ Final dissolution of the political organism .
viceable to C h ristian ity th an P la to ’s, an d his own scholastic education
* * *
had taught him the disastrous consequences of A ristotle’s lack of clarity
on the im m ortality question. W h at was needed, in his view, was a philo­ Such was F icino’s diagnosis of the ills that beset Florence in the latter half
sophy that had clear teachings on central theological questions, and of the Fifteenth century. T h e cure for them , fortunately, had been re­
which was presented in an attractiv e form . vealed to Ficino by D ivine Providence, acting through C osim o d e ’
From the divorce of philosophy an d religion flowed all the o th er social M edici; and in Finding the cure for the ills of Florence, Ficino found also
evils which Ficino deplored. Ig n o ra n t priests, im pious philosophers, his true vocation.
skeptical youths spread an evil influence th ro u g h o u t society, especially in
Bacchus, the leader of priests [wrote Ficino in the preface to his De vita of
its upp er echelons, w here good b eh av io r was especially im p o rtan t. Skep­ 1489], is reported to have had twin mothers; Melchizedek, that high priest,
tical youths— like Lorenzo d e ’M edici and Luigi P ulci— w rote frivolous had one who was scarcely his mother, and one scarcely his father. I, the
poetry, thus spoiling the taste for tru e religious poetry like V erg il’s and least of priests, have had two fathers, Ficino the medicus and Cosimo
de’Medici. From the one I was born; from the other, reborn. The former
commended me to Galen (the doctor and Platonist); the other consecrated
56 Op . , p. 3: “ Nam pueri religiosi nascuntur atque educantur et in religione firmissimi me to divine Plato. Both the former and the latter destined me to be a doc­
permanent, quousque in adolescentia ratio excitetur, quae sua natura singularum rerum tor, a Galen, a doctor of bodies, as well as a Plato, a doctor of souls. For
causas rationesque requirit. Si in hac aetate aut ea studia capessant aut in eos sermones some little time now I have therefore been practicing salutary medicine
incident quibus diligenter rerum causae perquirantur, incipiunt quasi nihil uelle under Plato: I composed a translation of all his books, then eighteen books
asseuferare, nisi cuius ipsi rationem perspexerint. Tunc primum religionem magna ex on the immortality and eternal felicity of souls, thus satisfying as far as I
parte post tergum abiiciunt, nisi forte legibus seniorumque consilio se committant. Quia
diuinorum occultissimae rationes longo uix tandem tempore exquisitissima diligentia
purgata mente perspiciuntur. Adolescentes illi rationes huiusmodi nondum attingunt, et
quia nihil ferme asserunt cuius non uideant rationem, si proprio confidant iudicio, 57 See the preface to Plotinus, Op . , p. 1537 = Plotini opera 1492, sign. Aii verso: Si quis
religionem quodammodo negligunt. Nonnulli in hac opinione constituti propter super- autem putet tarn diuulgatam impietatem, tamque acribus munitam ingeniis sola quadam
biam incontinentiamque Aristippicis uoluptatibus sese dedunt, tandem nihil amplius de simplici praedicatione fidei apud homines posse deleri, is a uero longius aberrare palam
religione nisi tanquam de anilibus fabulis cogitantes.’’ The theme of adolescent skep- reipsa proculdubio conuincetur; maiore admodum hie [sic Op.\ opus est potestate.
ticisrO and its evil effects on society is a frequent one for Ficino; see Allen (1975), pp- 58 This “ detachment’’ was naturally all the more reprehensible in the period before
228-312, Op., pp. 770, 1412, Comm, in Conv. , ed. Marcel, pp. 260-261 ; in this context the Enlightenment, which had no reason to regard a distinction between tact and value
Ficino may have been thinking of the evil influence of Luigi Pulci on Lorenzo de’Medici. in a positive light.
 292 P A R T IV FLORENCE 293

cjould my Medicean father. Then, thinking my medical father ought to be sophy together in an ideal co m p o u n d .62 H u m an ist rhetoric and poetry
satisfied, I composed a book on preserving health for men of letters.59 was eloquent and beautiful b u t philosophically em pty; scholastic theology
T his is literary play, b u t, in keeping w ith F icin o ’s habit and conviction, had tru th w ithout being able to persuade hearers of its tru th ; but P la to ’s
it was serious play. For Ficino, as is clear from a m u ltitu d e of parallel style, halfway betw een prose and poetry, was both charm ingly eloquent
passages, believed that he had been called by D ivine Providence to cure and full of w isdom .63 T h e dialogues could thus be for the Florentines the
the spuls of e d ucated F lorentines using the dialogues of Plato as his chief exem plar of a healthy literatu re and at the sam e tim e a sovereign rem edy
m edicine.60 In his m in d , indeed, a great p ro of of his calling was the for their spiritual ills.
am azing degree to which the P latonic dialogues supplied the political and E qually providential, given the parlous state of Florentine civic life, was
spiritual needs of educated F lorentines, o f m en who were at once P la to ’s political doctrine. H ere too, P lato ’s teaching was a happy m ixture
m em bers of the ruling class and devotees of classical literatu re. For surely of opposites. For while the political wisdom of Socrates and Pythagoras
it was the w ork of Providence th at, at the very m om ent w hen Italian was too high for m an, and that of A ristotle was too low, Plato com bined
culture had lost its spiritual purpose an d b o n d , there should ap p ear anew h u m an and divine wisdom to produce the best possible prescription for the
in the W est a body of w ritings, w ritten in a m agically attractive way, suf­ ills of states.64 T h e great m alady ot their city ’s political life, as most fif­
fused with the g lam our of an tiq u ity , w hich at the sam e tim e taught a doc­ teenth-century Florentines perceived it, was a lack of u n anim ity about
trine astonishingly close to that of C h rist an d the Fathers. A nd Plato was, policy springing from an ineluctable tendency to place private advantage
as Ficino could see, by far the best o f the ancient theologians for the above the public good.65 As Piero d e ’M edici put it in a typical speech
divine purpose. N ot only was he the cu lm in atio n of the entire tradition before the Florentine S ignoria and the colleges:
of ancient theology. H e was also p articu larly close to the Mosaica veritas, Two things are necessary for citizens to enjoy the desired good (civic harmo­
having heard the H ebrew p rophets d u rin g his visit to Egypt and having ny] perpetually: that they preserve and administer justice ... and that the
becom e in consequence a follower of M o se s.61 Ficino delighted to repeat citizens maintain harmony and be of one mind, so that in running the com­
the saying of N u m en iu s that P lato was n o th in g o th er than a M oses speak­ monwealth they may avoid those divisions which bring ruin to the land, but
rather think and act wisely with unanimous mind and will concerning all the
ing Attic G reek. M oreover, the dialogues them selves as literary speci­ things which they think relevant to the safety of the fatherland and each of
m ens showed in several respects th at healthy balance of opposites which its citizens, as well as to the seemliness of the commonwealth. ... Thus every­
every disciple of G alen sought to m a in ta in in the organism s u n d e r his one should see to it that their dissensions do not cause the shameful and ex­
care. W hile vulgar religion followed p u re priestcraft, and vulgar tremely damaging loss of so many goods. For all citizens are at the same time
scholasticism followed p ure philosophy, P lato m ixed religion an d philo- brothers; though they are born of different parents, they still have the same
fatherland and place of abode and hence they all ought to think of themselves
as allies and brothers, constituted so by nature itself and by the laws.66*
39 Op., p. 493: “ Dux ille sacerdotum Bacchus geminas quasi matres habuisse fertur;
Melchisedech autem summus ille sacerdos unam uix matrem, unum uix patrem habuit.
Ego sacerdos minimus patres habui duos, Ficinum Medicum, Cosmum Medicen. Ex illo 62 See the letter to Martinus Uranius edited in Klibansky (1939), p. 45: “ Duas ad fefici-
natus sum, ex isto renatus. Ille quidem me Galeno (turn medico, turn Platonico) com- tatem vias divinus Iamblichus Aegyptiorum mente describit, alteram philosophicam,
mendauit; hie autem diuino consecrauit me Platoni. Et hie similiter atque ille Marstlium alteram sacerdotiam: illam quidem apertiorem ad felicitatem inveniendam, hanc vero
medico destinauit, Galenus quidem corporum, Plato uero medicus animorum. Iam diu breviorem ad consequendam. Illam imprimis elegerunt Peripatetici similesque philoso­
igitur sub Platone salutarem animorum exercui medicinam, quando post librorum om­ phy hanc maxime populus religiosus incedit. Plato noster utramque viam mirabiliter con-
nium eius interpretationem mox decern atque octo de animorum immortalitate libros et iunxit in unum et ubique religiosus est pariter atque philosophus, disputator subtilis, pius
aeterna felicitate composui, ita pro utribus patri meo Medici satisfaciens. Medico uero sacerdos, facundus orator.”
patri satis deinceps faciendum putans, librum de literatorum ualetudine curanda com­ 63 O p., p. 1129; cp. Op., p. 714. For the function of Plato’s poetic style in Platonic
posui.’’ education, see below, section 3.
00 On the conception of wean seno in Ficino. see Wind, Pagan Mysteries, p. 236; Allen 64 O p ., p. 1488; see below, note 241. For another aspect of the relationship between
(1986), pp. 438, 444; and below, p. 337. For Ficino's calling to restore the union of phi­ Ficino’s interpretation of Plato’s political theory and contemporary Florentine political
losophy and religion, see O p., p. 854: “ Quorsum haec de sapientiae pietatisque copula? thought, see E. Wind, “ Platonic Tyranny and the Renaissance Fortuna: On Ficino’s
Ut videlicet meminerimus primo quantum aureis illis sacrae philosophiae seculis Reading o i Laws IV , 709A-712A, ” in De artibus opuscula X L : Essays in Honor of Erwin Panof-
debedmus. Deinde (ut ipse intelligas) qua ratione Marsilius sectator antiquitatis non sky, ed. M. Meiss (New York, 1961), 1: 491-496.
solum in uno illo religionis libro quern petis, verum etiam in omnibus eius scriptis una 65 For these traditional Florentine political attitudes, see F. Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guic­
cum philosophicis semper religiosa pro ingenii facultate coniungat.” ciardini, Politics and History in Sixteenth Century Florence (Princeton, 1965), Chapter 1.
Op., pp. 774, 866, 956. For Ficino’s source, see above, p. 51. 56 Quoted by Field, Origins, Chapter 2; I have modified somewhat Field’s translation.
 294 P A R T IV FL O R E N C E 295

Such statem ents about the need for u n ity and fraternal love betw een An intelligence of this sort he leads up through all the grades of learning,
citizens had been a com m onplace o f practica speeches since the fourteenth as is clear in Book Seven. He commands that he be given practice in
century, but the renovatio of P latonism could finally supply the m eans to statesmanship, and tests and proves him carefully, like gold by fire, in the
midst of pleasures, pains, labors, and dangers, before he entrusts the gover­
reach those long-desired ends. F or P la to ’s doctrine could provide precise­ nance of the city to him. Yet the primary necessity he judges to be his
ly the sort of u n an im ity needed to bind togeth er the ru lin g class in pursuit knowledge of the Good Itself, the most outstanding of all knowledges, af­
of the com m on good. A P latonic ed u catio n , coupled w ith divine grace, firming that ... a citizen can order neither his private nor his public affairs
would elevate m en to a vision o f the good, and that vision, once attained, in accordance with the good unless he has a rational comprehension of what
woulfd lead them necessarily to do w hat was ju st. A nd a com m on ex­ that Good is. And although to the Aristotelian the knowledge of this divine
good appears superfluous for governing the commonwealth according to
perience of G od in the eros of contem p latio n would b ind them each to human behavior, it is nevertheless necessary for that very governance
each in Platonic love, m elting dow n their private ends into a single end through which, Plato said, one must try to make citizens friends and im­
and h com m on good. T h u s the old Socratic equation of know ledge and itators of G od.68*
virtue, with suitable ad ju stm en ts to account for a C h ristian doctrine of
At tim es, Ficino seems alm ost to be calling for a Plajonic theocracy, as
the will, becom es in F icin o ’s hands a philosophical experience of tru th
in his a rg u m en t to Book V II of the Republic (com m enting on the allegory
and unity capable of altering the psychological conditions which create
of the Cave):
disagreem ent and factionalism .67 M o reo v er, a Platonic education could
at la$t bring about that b o n d in g of w isdom and pow er w hich had long After the Philosopher has contemplated God and his celestial government,
been the object of h u m anistic ed ucation. B ut for Ficino, that bonding then only, and only he, can govern earthly things in a divine manner. Plato
praises Minos for this, who in a state of contemplation petitioned Jove for
would be achieved, not th ro u g h superficial im itation of the ancient v ir­ laws before promulgating them to men. Leaving aside the way many people
tues as expressed in literary texts, b u t th ro u g h a deeper contem plative laud Scipio because he governed with Jupiter as his teacher [in the Somnium
knowledge of the true good. C o m m e n tin g on the doctrine of the Scipionis], what shall I say of Numa Pompilius, who governed the state by
Philosopher-king in the Republic, Ficino w rote religious laws [Livy, 1.18 f.]? Did not also the Mosaic law, by which the
people of God were divinely governed, come to men through God’s own
[Plato] educates the philosopher and the citizen using a completely similar teaching? ... Plato allows no one to govern his commonwealth without first
plan, and this with good cause. For he lays it down in the Statesman and establishing that he is a man of divine gifts and divine education, and that
Sophist that the civil or royal man and the philosopher are one and the same. man alone is always called by Plato the rightful citizen and philosopher. But
He proves that there ought to coincide in him two genera which very rarely why does he say divine gifts were necessary for this task? Leaving aside
do coincide in men: a nature, that is, which is sharp-witted, suited to con­ other reasons, he says it because, although it is very difficult for a man to
templation, burning with desire for truth, and a nature which is authorita­ rule himself happily, it is surely impossible, without God, to bring blessedly
tive, strenuously active, and provident with respect to the common good. together in the love of blessedness a city-state composed of so many and

67 See the argument to the Gorgtas {O p., p. 1316 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 118ra-vb),
which, admits that the will can disrupt the connection between knowledge and justice 68 O p . , p. 1407 {Arg. in Rep. VI) = Platonis opera 1491, f. 215ra: “ Omnino autem simili
(here Conceived of as the universal virtue), but argues that divine illumination can in ef­ ratione erudit philosophum atque ciuem, neque id quidem iniuria. Assent enim in
fect trump the disruptive action of the will: “ Hinc Socrates argumentatur: Si orator scit Politico et Sophista eundem esse uirum regium et ciuilem atque philosophum. Oportere
iusta, ergo est iustus—tentans uidelicet Gorgiam, nunquid uim consequentiae teneat. Ille uero probat in hoc concurrere duo quaedam genera rarissime in hominibus concurrentia:
uero qdmittit statim, cum proprie in scientiis artibusque ad intelligentiam pertinentibus naturam uidelicet ingenio acutam, contemplationi aptam, ueritatis auiditate fiagrantem,
id seqUatur: scit astrologica uel fabrilia, ergo astrologus est uel faber. In iis tamen quae una cum natura graui, ad agendum strenua, boni publici prouida. Ingenium eiusmodi
ad uoluntatem moresque pertinent non sequatur: scit iusta, ergo iustus. Opus enim ad per omnes disciplinarum gradus perducit, ut patebit in septimo. Iubet quoque exerceri
iustiti&m est uoluntate. Veruntamen si quis diuinam quandam de iustitia scientiam ciuilibus actionibus atque inter uoluptates dolores labores pericula uelut aurum igne
habeat, quod quidem spirante Deo fieri quandoque posse Plato uult, recte sequetur. diligenter examinari atque probari, priusquam ciuitatis gubernacula sibi credantur. In
Quisquis enim certissime sciuerit quantum bonum iustitia sit quantumue praemium primis autem ipsius bom scientiam omnium praestantissimam huic iudicat necessariam,
maneat, atque contra, quantum iniustitia [iustitia Op. ] malum quantumue huic sup- affirmans ... neque posse ciuem uel priuata uel publica ad bonum rite dirigere [redigere
pliciutn debeatur, is proculdubio iniustitiam fugiens, iustitiam complectetur. ” For fur­ O p.\ nisi quid bonum sit ratione cognouerit. Etsi diuini huius boni scientia uideri
ther connections between the language of Platonic love and political concordism in the Aristotelico potest superflua ad rempublicam humanis moribus gubernandam, necessaria
later Quattrocento, see O p. , p. 1945; D. Weinstein, Savonarola and Florence: Prophecy and tamen est ad hanc ipsam gubernationem, per quam Plato in superioribus inquit conan-
Patriotism in the Renaissance (Princeton, 1970), pp. 190, 204; A. Brown, “ Platonism in Fif­ dum esse ciues Deo similes amicosque reddere.” The term “ royal man ’ has a technical
teenth Century Florence and Its Contribution to Early Modern Political Thinking,” meaning in Ficino’s usage, signifying not a monarch but any member of the political
Journal of Modern History 58 (1986): 383-413; Field, Origins, chapter 7. classes; see, e.g., Op., p. 1404.
296 P A R T IV FLORENCE 297

so diverse elem ents, which is daily threatened with innum erable and uncer­ teach in g .71 H e accepted the report in St. Basil of C aesarea and in St.
tain m ischances.69 Je ro m e (w hich had been influenced by these a u th o rs’ devotion to the early
In sum , Ficino believed sincerely that refashioning the cultural and m onastic m ovem ent) that this spot was particularly u n healthy and had
educational life of Florence in accordance w ith the d octrine of his Plato been chosen in o rder to help Plato m ortify his flesh.72 But he did not know,
redimpus could b rin g about-the regeneration of h er religious belief and quiet or chose not to think, that P lato ’s A cadem y had been a form al school with
the tum ults o f her political struggles. P latonic philosophy was a double link reg u lar lessons; he thought of it rather, in a looser sense, as a collective
b in d in g faith to reason and w isdom to pow er, ju s t as spirit is the bond, the nam e for Plato and his disciples. T he exercises of the A cadem y, Ficino
tertium quid, betw een soul and body. T h e idea that P latonic theology was assum ed, did not take the form of classes, b u t were rath er m ore casual en­
a spiritual link necessary to the health of the individual soul and the body counters such as were depicted in the dialogues: im provised conversations
politic was the central m otive, or ju stificatio n, for F icino’s Platonic on the Socratic model; or organized b an quets such as that enacted in the
revival. T h e goal of the Platonic revival was not a “ retreat to Symposium-, or declam ations such as Socrates gives in the Menexenus and
m etaphysics” o r a “ flight from the city of m e n ” , but a m ore profound in­ oratorical practice as shown in the Phaedrus-, or instruction in m athem atics
tegration of the active and contem plative life w hereby the latter could give like that described in the Meno. As in the dialogues, they did not usually
health and w isdom to the form er. take place at P lato ’s “ su b u rb an p ro p erty ” b u t rath er in the city, in gym ­
nasia near the walls, or (as in the Phaedrus) in num inous places outside the
* * * c ity .73 A nd P la to ’s disciples had not been schoolboys learning set texts, but
gifted young A thenian aristocrats who intended to go into politics. These
H av in g discovered the cure for the ills of co n tem porary society, Ficino had
still to find the m eans to ad m in ister his Platonic rem edies to the educated ancient academ icians had led an austere and sober life and had displayed
classes of society who needed it the m ost. H ere again, Ficino w ent to a rem arkable contem pt for riches and an equally rem arkable devotion to
classical a n tiq u ity for his inspiration, though here again, that inspiration the com m on good. T h eir sobriety had been tem pered by a decent con­
was necessarily shaped by the resources Ficino possessed to in terp ret the viviality, how ever, and their seriousness by a w itty and ironic m anner. In
ancient texts. In deciding how to spread the good m edicine of Platonism addition to their own disciples, Plato and Socrates had had contacts with
thro u g h F lorentine society, Ficino n atu rally tu rn ed to the exam ple of docile young boys, whom they had tried to convert to philosophy, and with
P la to ’s A cadem y and tried to piece to gether from fragm entary ancient ac­ sophists whose evil influence on others they had tried to m inim ize through
the elenchus. But with his most advanced and m ost purified disciples, Plato
counts how it had lived and w o rk ed .70 Ficino understood from D iogenes
L aertiu s and o th e r sources that the A cadem y was P lato ’s “ small su b u rb an w ould ascend dialectically to the highest secrets of n atu re and theology:
p ro p e rty ” outside of A thens w here he lived an d conducted some of his such instruction was depicted (though in a poetic and arcane m anner) in
the Timaeus and the Parmenides. It was in this way, Ficino thought, that
Plato had tried to bring back the golden age in which philosophers ruled
69 Op-, p. 1409 (Arg. in Rep. V I I ) = Plaloms opera 1491, f. 219vb: “ Postquam uero and rulers were philosophers.74*
Deum philosophus contemplatus fuerit celestia gubernantem, tunc solum et solus poterit
terrena diuinitus gubernare. Qua quidem in re Plato Minoem laudat ab Ioue prius con-
tempiando petentem leges, quam ad homines promulgaret. Mitto quantum multi laudent 71 O p . , p. 769: “ Cum patrimonio ditissimus esset, fratribus largitus est omnia, praeter
Scipipnem, quod Ioue magistro ad rempublicam accedebat. Quid de Numa Pompilio suburbanum praediolum, quam Academiam nominabant.” Praedium is the Latin
dicam, ciuitatem religiosis legibus gubernante? Nonne et Mosaicae leges, quibus Dei equivalent of podere in legal documents ot the fifteenth century; the property at Careggi
populbs diuine gubernaretur, Deo ipso docente ad homines peruenerunt? ... Non admit- which Cosimo gave Ficino was described as a predium (M ostra , p. 175). Ficino s direct
tit qupnquam ad hanc suam rempublicam gubernandam, nisi quern constiterit diuina source here, Diogenes Laertius III.7, describes the Academy as a gymnasium: htaveXGwv
quadam tarn indole quam educatione utrunque donum diuinitus accepisse, quern solum §£ eu; ’A0riva<; SieTptfkv ev ’AxaSripeta- to 8’ iaxi yupvaaiov 7tpoa<rreiov aXataSe? arc6 tivo?
ubiqUe legitimum ciuem philosophumque appellat. Sed cur diuino ad id munere opus ripoio? ovopaaOtv 'ExaOripou.
esse dicit? Mitto nunc alias rationes; quia uidelicet cum difficillimum cuique sit seipsum 72 O p., p. 764. See St. Basil, De legendis libns gentihum, cap. 7 (which Ficino probably
feliciter gubernare, certe impossibile est ciuitatem ex tarn multis diuersisque com- knew in Bruni’s Latin translation) and St. Jerome, Adv. Jovinianum, 2.9.
positam, cui et quotidie innumerabiles incertique imminent casus, beate unquam absque 73 For the setting of the Phaedrus, see Allen (1984b), chapter 1. Allen (1977) argues that
Deo beatitudinis auctore componere.” Ficino’s public lectures on the Philebus in S. Maria degli Angeli were modelled on ancient
70 On Ficino’s imitation of the Platonic Academy, see Della Torre, pp. 628-654, accounts of Plato’s famous “ lecture on the Good” .
801-820; “ The Platonic Academy of Florence, ” in Kristeller (1965), pp. 89-101; Allen 74 For further discussion of Ficino’s depiction ot Plato and Socrates, see below, p.
(1977); and below, p. 298. 32 If.
298 P A R T IV FLORENCE 299

Ficino did his best to revive the A cadem ic style of philosophizing, so system atically th ro u g h the A ristotelian co rp u s.76 But P la to ’s dialogues of­
interp reted , in his own Florence. T h e im portance of F icin o ’s own fered a m odel for m ak in g the contem plative life available to m en deeply
“ A cadem y” , properly so called, has, to be sure, been m uch exagge­ involved in the active life. It offered, in addition, the rhetorical and m oral
rated !75 was probably not the great cen ter of Florentine intellectual life high ground needed to show that the study of summule fratesche, though in
it has been presented as being in the secondary literature; it did not m eet appearance m ore d em an d in g , were in fact inferior to the true
at the M edici villa o r F icin o ’s house at C areggi; it was not a creation of “ academ ic” way of philosophizing Ficino offered his friends. H e did,
M edipi patro n ag e, n o r can it be proved th at m any leading L au ren tian in ­ like A rgyropoulos, lecture publicly, at some points in his life every d a y ,77
tellectuals, such as P oliziano, L an d in o , Scala, Braccesi, or Pico, were at the church of S an ta M a ria degli Angeli. But his m ethod of teaching
ever m em bers of it. M ost likely it was a priv ate gym nasium attended by did not po u n d the text scholastically to bits; that was a m ethod designed
young m en who h ap p en ed to be u n d e r F ic in o ’s tutelage. Platonic philos­ only to train fu ture scholastics, not citizens and m en of letters. Instead,
ophy was no d oubt the m ain , b u t it was not the exclusive interest of Ficino dealt m ore selectively and discursively with topics found in the
F icinb’s “ acad em ics” , and the n u m b e r of young m en fully initiated into text which he th o ught directly relevant to his h e a re rs’ needs and in­
the Platonic m ysteries was pro b ab ly q u ite sm all. A nd there was certainly terests. M oreover, m uch of F icino’s teaching, like P la to ’s, was done less
in F icino’s “ A cad em y ” no form al in stitu tio n , no statutes or bylaws, as form ally, in serm ons, at a fam ous b an q u et in honor of P la to ’s birthday,
in thet literary and scientific academ ies o f the sixteenth century. F icino’s in friendly discussions at villas outside Florence and at the houses of
aim was ra th e r pedagogical an d religious. H e sought to be the Socrates F icino’s friends in Florence. Ficino also spread his teaching by m eans of
of Florence, reclaim ing for piety an d tru e religion young m en exposed P latonizing “ spiritual le tte rs” , treatises, translations, an d o th er works
to the intellectual co rru p tio n of A ristotelian “ sophists” at the Florentine w hich carried his Platonic revival far beyond the walls of Florence, to
studium. L ured by F icin o ’s ch arm , sophistication, and aristocratic ac­ other parts of Italy, to G erm an y , France, H u n g ary , and even E ngland.
quain tan ce, skeptical youths would be b ro u g h t by m eans of read in g and F icin o ’s “ A cad em ic” way of teaching was thus far b etter suited to the
inform al discussion to see th at the secular philosophy of the scholastics needs of his adult professional and even his aristocratic hearers than
was inferior to the P latonism of the F athers; that the tru e, ancient A rgyropoulos’ lectures in the F lorentine Studio had ever been. T o be
wisdom of C h ristian ity co n tain ed u n im ag in ab le depths an d pow ers u n ­ sure, in all of these activities Ficino had o ther, co n tem porary forms of in ­
dream ed of. tellectual activity to m odel him self upon: the libere scuole of the early Q u a t­
But F icino’s activities as a teacher o f P lato n ism were by no m eans con­ trocento; the literary and religious discussion groups, or brigate, favored
fined to the circle of his A cadem ics. T h e A cadem ic style of philosophizing by F lorentine aristocrats since the fourteenth century; m ost im portantly,
he revived proved, indeed, ad m irab ly suited to the task of spreading perhaps, the exercises of intellectually inclined confraternities such as
Platonism to the b ro ad er society of upperclass Florence. F icino’s own cir­ Lorenzo P isa n o ’s compagnia at San L o ren zo .78 O ne m ight even say that
cle of friends, a rem ark ab ly wide one, was the basis of his apostolate. It Ficino had classicized the confraternity, ju st as h u m an ist rhetoricians had
included for the m ost p a rt ed ucated professionals—doctors, lawyers, tu rn ed the serm on into a classical oration, or the m edieval com m une into
chancery officials, university teach ers— or independently w ealthy m em ­ a classical republic, or pride into magnanimitas. Yet Ficino was doing
bers pf the political class. In a fam ous “ catalogus am icorum n o stro ru m ” , m ore th an applying a classical varnish to traditional religious and
Ficinp listed sixty-seven of F lo ren ce’s leading intellectuals and statesm en cultural form s. H e was him self convinced, and had convinced his pupils
as am ong his students and influences. D ealin g as he did w ith busy in ­ and friends, th at by a tten d in g his “ A cadem ies” , his lectures, serm ons
dividuals from various professions, th ere could be no question of a and collations, they w ere reviving an ancient and ideal form of
regular and tim e-consum ing schedule of lectures. F icino’s friends, most philosophizing w hich could profoundly transform their lives and the life
of them , could not have afforded to h ear daily lectures which followed an of their city-state. C osim o d e ’M edici, surely, would not have asked for
integrated cu rricu lu m , as the circle of D o n ato Acciaiuoli had followed,
year after year, the lectures of J o h n A rgyropoulos as he w orked his way
76 For the circle of Argyropoulos and its members, see Field, Origins, chapters 3-5.
75 For the next two paragraphs, see my “ The Myth of the Platonic Academy of 77 See the document of 9 December 1487 discussed by Viti in Mostra, p. 187, no. 157.
Florence” . 78 See Kristeller, Studies, pp. 99-122, and Della Torre, passim.
300 P A R T IV FLORENCE 301

Plato on his d eath bed had Platonism been for him n o thing b ut “ une sorte Ficino at this date m ay have intended to translate only the ten
de jou e ru d it” or “ elegant n o n sen se” . dialogues dedicated to C o sim o .83 But w ith the death of his patron it was
clearly wise to extend his original project. By A pril of 1466, tw enty-three
dialogues had been tran slated , and K risteller has argued plausibly that
2. Ficino and the Platonis o pera om nia
a draft, at least, of all thirty-six dialogues was com pleted by 1468 or 1469.
In S eptem ber of 1462, Ficino received from C osim o d e ’M edici a A fter 1469, as Ficino later w rote in a preface to L orenzo, “ I was reluc­
m anuscript co n tain in g all the dialogues o f Plato in G re e k .79 A few days tantly distracted by F o rtu n e from the d uty of tra n sla tio n .” 84 F ortune
later A m erigo Benci ( “ im itatin g in this as in m any o ther m atters great m ay have received help from the Commentarium in Convivium De amore,
C osim o ” as Ficino w rote approvingly) em bellished F icin o ’s library with w ritten in 1469, from the Philebus com m entary, also of 1469, from
a second codex of P latonic dialogues in G re e k .80 Yet despite his obvious F icin o ’s magnum opus, the Platonic Theology in 18 books, which he is known
pleasure at the two gifts, Ficino did not, it seems, em b ark im m ediately to have been com posing d u rin g the years 1469-1474, and from his De
upoti his translation o f Plato. It was only in A pril of 1463, the sam e m onth Christiana religione, w ritten in 1474. At the end of 1474, Ficino seems to
in which C osim o gave Ficino a house n ear his own villa at C areggi, that have retu rn ed to his Plato translation w hich he began to revise with the
Ficino began to teach the divine spirit of Plato to speak the tongue of help of learned friends. By 1483, Ficino was beginning to look for a
LatiU m .31 By 11 J a n u a ry 1464, he had translated nine dialogues, and by p atro n to underw rite the cost of having the w ork p rinted, and was p roba­
the tim e C osim o died at C areggi on 1 A ugust 1464, Ficino had added a bly already having the dedication copy, w ith illum ination by A ttavante,
tenth dialogue, a preface to C osim o, and an arg u m en t for each of the p rep ared for Lorenzo. In J a n u a ry of 1484 (n .s.), Filippo V alori and
dialogues. A ccording to F icin o ’s account, it will be recalled, C osim o had Francesco Berlinghieri contracted with F ra D om enico da Pistoia and
ju st finished read in g the last dialogue, the Philebus, w hen “ he was recalled L orenzo V eneto to produce 1025 copies of F icino’s Plato on their p rin ­
from this shadow of existence back to the supernal lig h t.” 82 ting press located at S. Ja c o p o di R ipoli, a D om inican convent outside
Florence, and by late S eptem ber or early O cto b er of the same year the
first edition of the Platonis opera omnia cam e off the presses.85
79 Mv account of the history of Ficino’s translation depends on the chronology estab­
lished in Kristeller, S u ppl., 1:CXLVII-CLVII; Kristeller (1966); and Kristeller (1978). F or the next decade, Ficino devoted him self to the study of the ps.
30 For the two gifts, see the letter to Cosimo in Suppl. 2:88, “ Quod tandem pro tantis D ionysius .nd of Plotinus, eventually pro d u cin g translations with com ­
muneribus referam aliud nihil habeo, nisi ut Platonicis voluminibus que ipse largissime m en tary upon these authors. In the early 1490s he returned again to
porrexisti sedulus incumbam and to Benci in Op., p. 609, “ Accepi hodie tuo nomine
Graecos Platonis nostri Dialogos __ Imitari in hoc. sicut in plerisque aliis magnum P lato. It was his plan at this tim e to produce a deluxe edition of the works
Cosnium, ut arbitror, uoluisti; is enim superioribus diebus bibliothecam meam Graeco of Plato with full com m entaries. But the death in 1492 of Lorenzo
ornauit Platone.' ’ On the Greek codices used by Ficino for his translation see M. Sicherl, d e ’M edici, who was to have financed the prin tin g , com pelled Ficino to
“ Neuentdeckte Handschriften von Marsilio Ficino und Johannes Reuchlin,” Scriptorium
16(1062): 50-61. A. Diller, “ Notes on the History of Some Manuscripts of Plato, ’’ in his m odify his plan. Instead he produced in 1496 his Commentana in Platonem
Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition (Amsterdam, 1983), pp. 251-258 at 257; Mostra, pp. w hich om it the text of the dialogues, although a few further revisions to
28-31, no. 22, with further bibliography; S. Gentile, “ Note sui manoscritti greci di the text printed in 1484 are included in the textual sum m aries Ficino pro­
Platone utilizzati da Marsilio Ficino.“ Studi in onore di Eugenio Garin (Pisa, 1987), pp.
51-84: and my “ Cosimo de’Medici and the ‘Platonic Academy’ ” . vided for the later ed itio n .86
81 Ficino had occupied the previous months translating at the request of Cosimo the T h e re has been some question why Ficino, if he had finished his
Corpus Herrneticum; according to Corsi it was as a reward for this work that Cosimo gave translation of Plato in 1469, did not allow p arts of it to be copied until
Ficino the house near Careggi. For the date of Cosimo’s gift, 18 April 1463, see the docu­
ment published by P. Viti in Mostra, pp. 175-176, no. 140, and plate XXX VII. This cor­ 1482 and did not have the whole of it p rin ted until 1484. T h e usual
rects the traditional date of September, 1462 in Della Torre, p. 538f.; see also my
discussion in “ Cosimo de’Medici and the ‘Platonic Academy’ ” .
82 Op., p. 1965. Prof. Kristeller suggests to me that Oxford, MS. Canon, class, lat. 163 83 This is implied by the preface to the ten dialogues for Cosimo in Suppl. 2:103-105;
(Cat. A. no. 208) may well have been the manuscript prepared for Cosimo on his death­ see also Kristeller (1958), p. 46.
bed. The manuscript was evidently put together in great haste by several scribes working 84 O p., p. 1129: “ Postquam uero Petrus e uita decessit, fortuna praeclaris saepe
simultaneously, as is pointed out in Kristeller (1966), pp. 44-45, note 15. Later, alter operibus inuida inuitum me a traductionis officio distrahebat.”
Cosirino'.s death, the manuscript may have been presented to Piero, for it contains items, 85 Kristeller (1978), passim.
such as the translation of ps.-Xenocrates’ De morte, which were completed only after 1 86 For the Commentana in Platonem, see below, p. 3411’.; for the revisions to the 1484
August 1464. Opera included in the 1496 Commentana, see Allen (1981), p. 24.
302 P A R T IV FLORENCE 303

explanation is that, before 1474, Ficino was occupied w ith o th er projects, of ancient theology, w hatever Ficino m ight think. T o m ake his point, he
and that after 1474 he devoted him self to revising the translation and ex­ tried to show Ficino that his learned labors had been subservient to Fate
pan d in g his early arg u m en ts into full com m entaries. T h e re are, in fact, rath er th an to Providence.
sevenal letters from the later 1460s and 1470s w hich show F icino’s u n d e r­ Moreover, when some time ago I travelled to Italy to learn Latin and Greek
standable reluctance to have his w ork copied w hen it was still unpolished, at Florence, I remember I heard from two of your astrologers that, from the
and there is, m oreover, som e concrete evidence that Ficino did in fact position of the stars, you were about to renew the ancient utterances ol the
continue to revise his tran slatio n d u rin g the 1470s.87 F ubini has recently philosophers. If I heard it, I don’t remember which position of the stars, but
I think you remember; indeed I think you were the one who discovered it.
argued that Ficino in the later 1470s was o u t of sym pathy w ith the M edici
In order to confirm their prediction those astrologers also adduced that at
regim e, and th at his u n certain ty abo u t the political situation before 1478, a certain fateful time you had restored to the light the sound of the cythara,
and M edici suspicion of his loyalty after th at date, was responsible for his the chant and Orphic poetry hitherto lost in oblivion, and that you had
long delay in having his L atin Plato p rin ted . T h e degree of F icino’s thereafter translated the most ancient Hermes Trismegistus and many
political com m itm en t m ay well be d o u b ted , but there w ere certainly good Pythagorean works. Also you commented on the poems of Zoroaster and
before I returned hither from Florence you had put your hand to translating
reasons why in the volatile political clim ate of the 1470s Ficino m ight
Plato, under the same (as I suspect) astronomical auspices.91
have hesitated to en tru st him self and his Platonic revival to the protection
of L p ren zo .88 In his reply Ficino does not deny that he consulted the stars, but argues
T h ere is probably a good deal of tru th in both these explanations, but ra th e r that the stars are not, as it w ere, the gears of Fate so m uch as signs
there is an o th e r possible reason why Ficino chose to publish in 1484 of still higher providential p u rp o ses.92 W e know in fact that the astrologer
which has hith erto rem ained unexplored. It is clear that the 1484 edition Paul of M id d leb u rg , F icino’s friend and correspondent, had calculated on
of the Platonis opera omnia was very far from realizing F icin o ’s plans. W hat the basis of A lb u m asar that the year 1484 was a G reat Y ear, a conjunction
he had hoped for was a tran slatio n carefully divided up into capita with of S atu rn and J u p ite r which heralded m ighty changes for the C hristian
ap pro p riate titles, textual sum m aries, and full com m entaries on all the religion. O n the basis of the sam e conjunction F icino’s fellow-Platonist
dialogues. W h at was actually p rin ted was the bare text of the dialogues C ristoforo L andino had predicted the retu rn of D a n te ’s Veltro in 1484 to
with arg u m en ts, som e of them unfinished, and full com m entaries on only reform the C h ristian religion. A nd the H erm etic p rophet M ercurio da
a few dialogues; the m assive Philebus com m en tary, though large parts of C areggio hj.d also chosen the year 1484 to ap p ear on the streets of
it were finished, was exclu d ed .89 T h e re are also several passages which Florence u rging repentance before the com ing m illennium , and an n o u n c­
suggest that Ficino was in a g reat h u rry in the sum m er of 1484 to “ b ring ing (like Pletho?) the appearan ce of a new unified world religion. A con­
to b irth ’’ his L atin P la to .90 W h at h ad precipitated this com prom ise w ith tem p o rary dialogue recently attrib u ted to Lodovicus R egius C ornarius
F icino’s ideal edition of Plato? T h e re is no firm proof, b ut there are some and dated to the early 1480s, the Trialogus in rebus futuns X X annorum prox-
indications th at F icino’s h an d m ay have been hastened by astrological imorum, calculated that a conjunction of J u p ite r and S atu rn would take
considerations. In a letter w ritten before 1488 J a n u s P an n o n iu s tried to place betw een 1484 and 1504, a conjunction an n o u n cin g the end of the
tell Ficino th at his revival o f ancient theology was a m ark of curiositas world and the com ing of A n tich rist.93 For Ficino, we know , the conjunc-
rath er than of religio, and th at P rovidence was not served by a renovatio
91 O p. , p. 871: “ Praeterea memini cum olim in Italiam protectus latinis literis et graecis
erudirer Florentiae, me a duobus uestrorum astrologis audiuisse te ex quadam syderum
87 See the letter to Carolus Valgulius of 10 December 1474 {O p., pp. 736-737), where positione antiquas renouaturum philosophorum sententias. £)uam quidem positionem
Ficino seems to indicate that he has been distracted from Plato by pursuing other literary syderum et si audiuerim non satis recolo, sed te arbitror meminisse, imo et per te inue-
projects. For Ficino’s unwillingness to allow his work to be copied by friends see his letter nisse. Adduxerunt item illi astrologi ad suum iudicium confirmandum quod fatali quodam
to Miichele Mercati {Suppl., 2:88-89; and Mostra, p. 48, no. 36. For evidence that Ficino tampore antiquum cytharae sonum et cantum et carmina Orphica obliuioni prius tradita
revised his version of the Philebus, Phaedrus and Laws, at least, see App. 19A. luci restituisses, mox et Mercurium Trismegistum antiquissimum traduxisti et Pythago-
88 Fubini (1984); see also Field, Origins, chapter 7; Gentile (1983). A reprise o f Fubini’s rica multa. Item carmina Zoroastris explanauisti et antequam Florentia hue redirem
1984 article has now appeared in Rinascimento 27 (1987): 275-291. transferendo Platoni manu imiceras, lisdem (ut equidem suspicor) astronomis auspiciis.
89 See below, p. 318f. 92 O p., pp. 871-2.
90 See note 143 below and generally the letters in Book VII of his Epistolae, where 93 Paul of Middleburg, Prenostica ad uiginti annos duralura (Antwerp, 1484), for which see
Ficino repeatedly apologizes for neglecting his friends to work on his Plato version at A. Warburg, GesammelteSchriften 2 (Leipzig, 1932), pp. 514-515. On Middleburg and Lan­
Careggi. dino see Weinstein, Savonarola and Florence, pp. 87-88; and M. Lentzen, Studien zur Dante-
304 P A R T IV FLORENCE 305

tion p f S atu rn and J u p ite r signified the conjoining of w isdom and pow er, L ater, after a tim e w hen F ortune (the enem y of Providence) had
the precondition for a G olden Age. T h e need for jo in in g wisdom to distracted him from his true end, it was L orenzo who recalled him to the
pow er, m oreover, Ficino regarded as a peculiarly Platonic teaching; the task of tran slatin g Plato. T o C osim o had been dedicated the first ten
senteritia aurea of Republic V II— that states w ould be blessed w hen dialogues; to Piero, his son, the nine following; now Lorenzo received the
philosophers ruled or rulers philosophized— was the m ost fam ous of all rem ain in g 37 (considering the Laws as twelve and the Republic as ten
P la to ’s dicta. Indeed at the very end of F icino’s 1484 edition of the dialogues), together w ith the first 19 w hich he h ad inherited, as it were,
Platonis opera, in an arg u m en t to one of the Letters, Ficino explains one of from his father and g randfather. T h u s had the dictates of Providence at
its “ m ysteries” thus: last been fulfilled.
Let this then be Plato’s moral teaching: princes should honor the wise; the T his ch arm in g conceit, how ever, is not com pletely congruent with
wise should willingly consult the interest of princes. For wisdom without historical reality. R ecent studies have show n th at F icin o ’s association
power helps few, and power without wisdom harms many. Indeed power w ith the M edici had been relatively lim ited before the 1460s, and that his
without wisdom is the more pernicious the greater it is; wisdom which re­ sources of patronage were ra th e r m ore varied th an is usually adm itted.
mains distant from power is lame. The great conjunctions of the planets
T h e sam e tru th applies to the p atronage of his Plato translations. A lready
teach us this. Jupiter is the lord; Saturn the philosopher. Surely unless these
be conjoined nothing either great or stable may be established.94 before the death of C osim o Ficino had been offered, and perhaps had
sought, the p atronage of O tto N iccolini, w ho requested that he translate
In view of this evidence it is difficult to believe th at the appearance of the M inos .94a A fter C o sim o ’s death Ficino continued to seek other
F icin o ’s Platonis opera omnia in the G reat Y ear 1484 was not related to patro n s besides Piero, and ap p aren tly dedicated the Sophist to M ichele
F icin o ’s m illennial hopes for a renew al of C h ristian ity th ro u g h the the pia M ercati and the Politicus to M igliore C resci— dedications that were later
philosophia of Platonism . w ithdraw n and given to L orenzo and Federigo d ’U rb in o in stead .95 It was
* * * in the m id 1460s that L orenzo Lippi da Colie dedicated his version of the
Ion to Piero; F icino’s sudden dedication of his own Ion to the youthful
In the prefatory letter to Lorenzo of his L atin Plato Ficino chose to give L orenzo in this sam e period m ight be read as an attem p t to protect his
the im pression that his translation had been p atronized from start to position as the leading tran slato r of Platonica in F lorence.96 T h e only
finish exclusively by three g enerations of the M edici fam ily, acting as dedications of his Plato versions, o th er th a n the dedications to the three
local agents for D ivine Providence. C osim o, the glory of Italy an d a m an M edici p atriarchs, which Ficino (or L orenzo) allowed to stand in 1484,
o u tstan d in g for his piety, had been inspired by the D ivinity to succor w ere the dedications of the Menexenus to L o ren zo ’s b ro th er, G iuliano,
religion by reviving in L atin dress the ancient P latonic philosophy. killed in the Pazzi conspiracy of 1478, and a rededication of the Politicus
C osim o in his tu rn had chosen him , M arsilio Ficino, to be the instru m en t to Federigo d ’U rb in o (1482), w hich, Ficino hints, he had m ade only
of the P latonic revival, and h ad supervised his education for the purpose. because he w anted to help L orenzo gain F ed erig o ’s good w ill.97 T h e

Exegese Cnstoforo Landinos (Vienna, 1971), p. 173. E. Garin in Lo zodiaco delta vita (Bari,
1976f p. 86, speaks of the 1480s as a decade “ satura di profetismo ermetico, di annunzi 94a O p., p. 611; see Suppl. 1: CIL.
escatologici de eversione o de adventu Antichristi." For the attribution and dating of the 95 Suppl., l.CLI. A parallel case is offered by Ficino’s dedication of the Commentarium
Trialogus in rebus futuns X X annorum proximorum see now M. C. Davies, “ An Enigma and in Convivium deamore, originally dedicated to Giovanni Cavalcanti but later, in the Platonis
a Phantom: Giovanni Aretino and Giacomo Languschi,” Humamstica Lovaniensia 37 opera omnia, given to Lorenzo. In the original version of the De amore Francesco Bandini
(1988): 1-29 at 17-21. Lodovicus Regius was acquainted with Ficino’s great friend Ber­ had been credited with reviving the custom of a Platonic banquet on the birthday of
nardo Bembo; he also wrote another prophetic work dedicated to Franciscus Bollanus in Plato; in the later version Ficino credits the revival to Lorenzo de’ Medici. See S. Gentile
1485, anno pnmo motus ecclesiae (Davies, p. 20). (1983), pp. 9-19, and the discussion in Fubini (1984).
94 Platonis opera 1491, f. 327vb: “ Morale igitur apud Platonem preceptum esto: prin- 96 Against this interpretation must count the circumstance that Ficino was apparently
cipes sapientes honorent, sapientes libenter principibus consulant. nam et sapientia abs­ on cordial terms with Lippi, as one may see from Ficino’s two letters to him in O p . , pp.
que pbtentia prodest paucis et potentia, remota sapientia, obest multis. Potentia quidem 658 and 820; at p. 937 he numbers him among his familiares. In App. 18A I show that
experts sapientiae quo maior est, eo pernitiosior. Sapientia vero procul a potentia manca Ficino used Lippi’s previous translation in producing his own, far superior, version of
videtpr. Docent hoc magne planetarum coniunctiones. Iuppiter quidem dominus est, the Ion.
Saturnus vero philosophus. Hi profecto nisi coniungantur, nihil uel magnum uel stabile 97 This apparently occurred during 1482 when Federigo visited Florence; see Suppl.,
moliuntur.' ’ See also O p . , p. 1537 for a similar instance of Ficino finding astrological LCL-CLI for the date of the dedication . Ficino's hint is made in rather broad terms,
significance in the date of publication of his Plotinus translation. and one suspects he thought it to be not entirely convincing; see the Praefatio to Lorenzo
 306 P A R T IV FLORENCE 307

V alori, not the M edici, und erw ro te the p rin tin g of the R ipoli edition of rath er m onologue in which the eponym ous- interlocutor, a disciple of
the Platonis opera omnia as well as the la te r Commentaria in Platonem, and T h rasv m ach u s, delivers a devastating criticism of S o crates’ educational
Ficino also appealed to B ernardo R ucellai for a p rin tin g subsidy, though doctrine; even the firm est believer in the hiddenness of P lato ’s wisdom
apparently w ithout success.98 So although one can h ard ly deny the cen­ would have had difficulty finding the seeds of tru th h e re ."1'2 In the case
tral role played by M edici p atro n ag e in the app earan ce of F icin o ’s of the Spuria Ficino again followed the testim ony of D iogenes and of his
translation, one should also be sensitive to the tendency of M edici p a r­ m anuscripts. D iogenes ( I I I .62) had rejected five of the surviving Spuria,
tisans (including Ficino him self) to em bellish that role w henever possible. nam ely, the Demodocus, Sisyphus, Eryxias, Axiochus, and Alcyon, and these
Like many Florentines, Ficino was m ost enthusiastic ab o u t the M edici dialogues were also labelled as spurious in F icino’s codex. T h e same
when they were powerless o r dead. codex m arked two other dialogues, the De tusto and the De virtute, as
In Establishing the canon of P la to ’s w orks Ficino seem s to have fol­ p seu d o n y m o u s.103 O f these seven dialogues Ficino translated only the Ax­
lowed prim arily the au th o rity of the m an u scrip t trad itio n and of iochus, which had previously been translated as a work of Plato by Cen-
Diogenes L a e rtiu s’ Lives of the Philosophers, a copy of w hich (in the L atin cio, R inuccio, and C assarino. Ficino, how ever, a ttrib u ted the work to
translation of T ra v e rsa ri) Ficino ow ned an d a n n o ta te d .99 W ith two ex­ X enocrates, apparently on the strength of a testim ony in D io g en es.104*
ceptions, Ficino accepted as genuine the 36 dialogues in the nine Ficino also d eparted from his codex to assign the Definitiones to Speusip-
tetralogies traditionally associated w ith the editorship of T h ra sy llu s.100 pus, presum ably on the basis, again, of a report in D iogenes; this a ttrib u ­
T his (janon was vouched for both by D iogenes ( I I I .57-61) an d by F icino’s tion htts been followed by most m odern scholars."15 N ow here does Ficino
G reek m an u scrip t of P lato, which co ntained the dialogues in their offer serious argum ents for the authenticity or otherw ise ol any Platonic
T hrasyllan o rd er. T h e two exceptions are the Clitophon an d Letter X III, d ia lo g u e .10,1
both of which Ficino seems to have rejected on in ternal evidence. Letter
X III, though accepted by D iogenes, had earlier in the cen tu ry been re­ l0- Ficino included the dialogue in his translation, but did not write an argument and
jected by B runi as u n w orthy of P lato, an d as Ficino bo rro w ed extensively wrote at the head, “ Hie liber forte non est Platonis” . It is rejected by ail modern
from B ru n i’s tran slatio n of the Letters, it was n atu ral he should follow his scholars. But even here Ficino may have been influenced by his manuscript. In the table
of contents of Laur. LXXXV, 9 (f. 2r-v) the copyist lists the first seven tetralogies, fol­
ju d g m e n t of au th en ticity as w ell.101 T h e Clitophon is a b rie f dialogue or lowed by the Spuria, followed by the last two tetralogies (with Timaeus Locrus and
Plutarch, De amrnae procreatione between the Rep. and the / im .), followed by the Definitiones
in O p ., p. 1129: “ Praeterea ubi ad librum De regno perueneris, uidebis Fredericum Ur- and some works of Aristides and Libamus. The Spuria are indicated as such with the
binatem ducem eo die a me honoratum, quo ipse tuas aedes honorifice salutauit.” legend nXd-ca>vo<; voOeuopevoi (repeated at f. 205v where the texts begin) and are separated
98 See Kristeller (1978); Ficino acknowledges the patronage of several generations of from the previous tetralogies with a decorated line. Another decorated line separates the
the Vailori family (and their Pazzi cousins) in his preface to the Commentaria in Platonem group at the end from the dialogues following (cp. also f. 216r) but it is placed after the
(O p . , p. 1136). Clitophon (the first member of the eighth tetralogy), not before as one would expect, thus
99 Laur. LXX XIX, inf. 48; see Gentile in Mostra, pp. 11-12, no. 10. Diogenes’ Life giving the impression that it too belonged in the group o i Spuria. Yet at the end of the
of Plato was also included in Ficino’s Greek codex of Plato’s works, Laur. LXXXV, 9 Spuria proper, that is, after the Axiochus (f. 215r), Ficino has written in his own hand teXcx;
at ff. 27r-32v. tcov vo0eu6[xevov. In his early commentary on the Philehus (eci. Allen [ 1976], p. 120), ficino
100 The association with Thrasyllus is debatable; see J. A. Philip, “ The Platonic Cor­ speaks of the Clitophon as though it were a genuine dialogue.
pus,” Phoenix (1970): 296-308 at 298-300. 10’ These two dialogues were also handed down with the text of Stobaeus, where they
101 See above, p. 79 for Bruni’s rejection of the letter, and App. 19A for Ficino’s use are attributed to Plato; I suspect that Cincius’ attribution of the De virtute (above, p. 84)
of Brupi. In his argument to Letter XII (O p . , p. 1536) Ficino writes simply, “ Epistolam may have been based on this testimony.
uero ad Dionysium [Ep. X III] quae ab ignorantibus his adiungitur ideo non traduximus, 104 In his life of Xenocrates (IV. 12) Diogenes listed a work by him entitled flEpi
quia e( ipsa epistolae uerba, et docti omnes negant esse Platonis.” Ficino may also have 0avdxou, and Ficino seems to have connected this work with the Platonic Axiochus, which
been influenced by the entry for the letter in the table of contents of his Greek manuscript bears the subtitle rtEpi Occvorcou. This work since the seventeenth-century has sometimes
(Laur L X X X V , 9, f. 2v; cp. 363v). Whereas the other letters give Plato as the sender been assigned to Aeschines Socraticus. Ficino’s attribution of the work was to my
of the letter, e.g. nXotTcov Aiovua(q) eu ttporrceiv, etc., Letter X I II has only the address knowledge accepted by only two sixteenth century scholars, Guillaume Postel (sec
Aiovualtp Tupocww Eupaxooatav eu Trpd-rcetv. Letter X I II was not restored to the collection of Kristeller, “ Guglielmo Postel lettore di Marsilio Ficino,” in Postello. Venezia e il suo mondo,
Plato’s letters until Antoine Vincente translated it and added it to his edition of the com­ ed. M. L. Kuntz [Florence, 1988], pp. 1-18) and Johannes Dugo (see Cat. B, no. 87).
plete works in 1557; see Cat. B, no. 96. Ficino also followed Bruni in assigning letters 105 In his life of Speusippus (IV .5), Diogenes lists a work of his with the title ”Opot;
I and V to Dion rather than to Plato, despite the contrary testimony of his manuscript. in Ficino’s Greek codex (ff. 364r and 365r) the work is given the title 'Opot nXaTwvop.
In the argument to Ep. V (O p., p. 1533), he explained, “ Etsi quintam hanc consuetudo 106 It is interesting that, though otherwise deeply influenced by him, Ficino does not
quaedam Platoni inscribit epistolam, uidetur tamen potius esse Dionis, Platonem in seip- follow Procius' rejection of the authenticity of the Epinorms (for which see the references
so totum pro uiribus effingentis.” in Saffrev-Westerink, p. 138, note to p. 23).
308 P A R T IV FLORENCE 309

D espite F icin o ’s acceptance of the T h rasy llan canon, he did not choose itself, the power to revert upon its cause, and the pow er to govern interior
to follow T h ra sy llu s’ o rd e r in his ow n edition of the L atin Plato. things. T hese powers are explained m ore fully in the next three
K risteller has argued plausibly th at the o rd er of the dialogues in the dialogues: the Alcibiades major on hum an n ature; the Alcibiades minor on
Platonis opera omnia of 1484 represents sim ply the o rder in w hich Ficino prayer; and the Minos on law. Since sanctity depends on m ain tain in g
chose to translate the d ia lo g u e s.107 W hy Ficino chose to translate them these three powers in purity and charity, the Euthyphro, “ on san ctity ” ,
in this order is an o th er q uestion. K risteller suggests th at, in the case of comes next, and w hen the m ind has been purged by sanctity, the divine
the first ten dialogues, Ficino was anxious to render dialogues as yet light flows into it and G od him self is perceived by its brightness; hence
unknow n to the L atin W est, which w ere at the same tim e short and easy the Parmenides “ on the one principle of all th in g s” follows. A nd since our
to translate. T h is is not wholly convincing, since the Parmenides and the beatitude consists in the vision of G od, the Philebus on the highest good
Philebus, both included in this early g ro u p , are both long and difficult, as should clearly come after the Parmenides which is on the highest good of
K risteller co n ced es.108 A m ore likely explanation is that Ficino chose to all n a tu r e .110 T his account, obviously of Plotinian and Proclan in spira­
translate those dialogues for which he had two or m ore m anuscript tion, is adm ittedly rath er forced, but no m ore forced than L an d in o ’s con­
witnesses and could therefore w ork from a reasonably correct te x t.109 tem porary attem pts to read a N eoplatonic ascent into the first six books
N evertheless, it cannot be excluded th at F icino’s choice also reflected of the Aeneid. And it is significant that already in 1484 Ficino is straining
less m u n d an e considerations, and som e atten tion should be paid to the to see the Platonic corpus as an integrated whole, an effort which would
rationale for the choice ot dialogues th at Ficino him self offers in his pref­ lead to some of his deepest insights as a c o m m e n ta to r.111
ace to C osim o, especially as there is no evidence to show that Ficino at It is fruitless to seek for some rationale in the o rder Ficino adopts for
this date contem plated tran slatin g the en tire corpus. Ficino claim s in his the rem aining tw enty-six dialogues, which corresponds to no know n a n ­
preface that the ten dialogues were chosen because of their them atic rela­ cient o rd e rin g .112* Ficino him self adm its in the Prooem ium to his 1496
tionships w ith each other; taken together, they form a “ Platonic ed u ca­ Commentana that his “ catalogue of all the Platonic dialogues” is disposed
tio n ’’ leading the soul from earthly things to the beatific vision. T he “ in a kind of h um an o rd e r” . 111 We know also from the argum ent to the
Hipparchus “ on the lust for p ro fit’’ pulls us away from opinion and the Epinomis that Ficino was still revising his translations and argum ents in
quest for m utable things; the Amatores “ on philosophy” teaches love for 1484 “ w ith the p rin te r’s devil at the d o o r” . 114 So the order ot the rem ain ­
wisdom , as does the Theages “ on w isd o m ” ; when the light of wisdom ing tw enty-six dialogues m ay represent nothing m ore exalted than the
begins to shine it im parts an attractiveness to each pow er (virtus) of the o rd er in which Ficino subm itted the final versions of dialogues to the
m ind, hence the Meno “ on v irtu e ” properly comes next in order. prin ter. N evertheless, there are a few patterns w ithin this apparently
W isdom in fact gives three pow ers to the m ind: the pow er to re tu rn to chaotic order. T h e three dialogues describing the trial and death of
Socrates— the Apology, Crito, and Phaedo— make up a unit to them selves.
107 Suppl., LCLI-CLII; Kristeller (1966), pp. 44-45. T h e Republic, Timaeus and Cntias, which form a dram atic trilo g y ,115 are
108 On this point see Allen (1975), pp. 4, 6. The Euth. had been translated previously kept together, as are the com panion dialogues Sophist and Statesmen. In his
by Rinuccio and Filelfo, the Meno by Henricus Aristippus, and the Prm. by George of arg u m en t to the form er dialogue Ficino fu rther advises the reader to
Trebizond. It is unlikely that Ficino knew any of these versions with the exception of the
Prm. (see App. 18A). study the Sophist after the Theatetus, though in the printed version these
109 The first ten dialogues are the Hipparch . , Am at . , Thg., Meno, Ale. I, Ale. II, M in.,
Euthphr., Prm. and Phil. Since the Benci codex has not yet been identified, we cannot be
sure which dialogues it contained, but it is suggestive that another manuscript recently 110 Argumentum Marsilu Ficim Florentini in deeem a se traductos Platonis dialogos ad Cosmum
identified by Sebastiano Gentile as among those used by Ficino (see the article cited in Medicem patne patrem in Suppl. 2:103-105. At lines 1-2 on p. 104 there is a silent quotation
note 80, above), Laur. MS Conv. soppr. 180, contains seven of the ten dialogues (ex­ of Bruni’s translation of Letter II (310E), further evidence of Ficino s study ot Brum s
cluding the Euthphr., P rm ., and Phil.). Gentile also proves in the same article that Ficino Plato; see App. 18A.
collated his main manuscript with another witness before producing his translation of the 111 See below, section 3. Ficino also tried to impose a Neoplatonic order on his Com-
first ten dialogues; see also Mostra, p. 30. According to Allen (1980), p. 112, Ficino also mentaria in Platonem, for which see Allen (1981), p. 38, note 108.
must have worked cither with Laur. Conv. soppr. 78 or Conv. soppr. 103 in making his 112 On the order used by the ancients see Allen (1989), chapter 1, with lurther
translation of Hermeias: the first of these manuscripts also contains the Euthphr., Prm. references.
and the Ax. (among other works); the latter contains the Euthphr. and Prm. (among other 1,3 Op., p. 1136.
works). Ficino's main manuscript, Laur. LXXXV, 9 (see Mostra, pp. 28-31), contained 114 See note 146, below.
the complete works. 115 For Ficino's account of the dramatic situation, see Op., p. 1438.
 310 P A R T IV FLORENCE 311

two works are separated by the Io n .116 Ficino also perceived a link b e­ For well over one hall' of the Platonic corpus, then (reckoning by
tween the Laches and Charmides— both, he thought, were dialogues in ­ n u m b er of Stephanus pages), Ficino was able to draw upon previous
tended to encourage youth to v irtu e — an d these rem ain linked in the w ork in producing his own translation. Ficino never acknow ledged this
printed e d itio n .117 T h e Laws (to g eth er w ith the Epinomis), w hich accord­ debt, feeling perhaps (as was usual in this period) that it was unnecessary
ing to D iogenes ( I I I .37) is P la to ’s last w ork, is m ade the last of the to give credit to the dead, or perhaps believing that his own work of
dialogues, ap p earin g im m ediately before the Letters. critical revision had m ade the translations his own. He did, however,
K risteller has suggested th at Ficino saved those dialogues for last which acknow ledge the help, in his preface ad lectorem, of a n u m b er of contem ­
were already available in L atin v e rsio n s,118 and this supposition is lent p orary Florentine scholars, including D em etrius C halcondvlas, Giorgio
coloc by the fact that Ficino d ep en d ed heavily in these later dialogues on A ntonio V espucci (uncle of the navigator), G iovanni Battista Bonin-
a num ber of previous hum an istic tran slatio n s. M ost heavily used were segni, Pohziano, L andino, and B artolom eo Scala. T he reader was thus
the versions of B runi, w hich Ficino n a tu ra lly knew well and in one case assured that the translation was the product of the best Florentine
had copied in his own h a n d .119 Ficino also m ade extensive use of scholarship: “ Lest perhaps you should think, dear reader, that so im por­
C hrysoloras’ and U berto D e c e m b rio ’s tran slation of the Republic, a tant a work was published rashly, be assured that while I was com posing
m anuscript of which existed in F lorence in F icino’s d a y .120 H e m ade the present work, before I published it, I consulted a num ber of
slighter use of C en cio ’s tran slatio n of the Axiochus, and seems to have re­ censores. ’ ’12:1
ferred at least to C alcid iu s’ tran slatio n of the Timaeus in m aking his own * * *
quite independent version. H e used both M o erb ek e’s and G eorge of
T re b iz o n d ’s previous versions o f the Parmenides, and consulted, at least, From the tim e of E rasm us nearly every scholar who has had occasion to
M oerbeke’s translation of P ro c lu s’ co m m en tary , parts of which ended up study in detail F icino’s translation of Plato has com e away impressed by
in his own com m en tary on the Parmenides. 121 H e also consulted the its accuracy, com pleteness, and philosophical p e n e tra tio n .124 T he history
passages of the Phaedrus tran slated by B essarion (or ra th e r P erotti) in the of Plato latinus in the early m odern period, indeed, dem onstrates the point
Calumniator. M ost surprising are the extensive borrow ings from G eorge clearly enough. F icino’s translation retained its rep u tatio n well into the
of T re b iz o n d ’s translation of the Laws an d the Epinomis. A pparently n in eteen th century, despite the efforts of other translators and revisors to
Ficino was w illing to distinguish betw een the philosophical and the displace h im .1'25 M odern students of F icino’s Platoms opera omnia have
philological value of G e o rg e ’s w ork on Plato, despite B essarion’s m ostly concurred w ith the traditional ju d g m e n t.126*C riticism of Ficino s
devastating critique in Book V of the Calumniator. But it is clear that
Ficino also collated B essarion’s criticism s o f G eo rg e’s Laws and Epinomis l-:i Suppl. 2:105 = Platoms opera 1491, sign. a4v: ” Ne forte putes, amice lector, tantum
opus editum tetnere, scito cum lam composuissem, antequam cderem, me censores huic
and adjusted his own version a c c o rd in g ly .122*
operi plures adhibuisse: Demetrium Athenienscm. non minus philosophia et eloquio
quam gen ere Atticum. Georgium Antoniurn Vespuccium. Joannem Baptistam
116 See Op., p. 1284; on the connection between the two dialogues see Allen (1988), Boninsegmum, Florentinos uiros Latinae linguae Graccaequc pcritissimos; usum
chapter 1. praeterea acerrimo Angeli Politiani doctissimi uiri iudicio, usum quoque consilio
117 See O p., p. 1307. Christophori Landini et Bartholomei Scalae, uirorum clarissimorurn. The particular
118 Kristeller (1966), p. 46. value he set on Poliziano’s advice is evident in his expression here, "the penetrating
119 See App. 18A. judgement of the most learned Politian” , an expression repeated in the acknowledgments
120 For the Florentine codex of the translation, see App. 18A, Cat. A, no.s 79 and 19. to the Plotinus version (O p., p. 1528), and in the preface to his version of Priscianus
121 See Steel, 1: 38*-40*. Allen (1989), chapter 1, note 4, rightly expresses skepticism Lydus (ibid., p. 1801)
concerning Steel’s further contention that Ficino knew the Moerbeke version only after '24 For Erasmus’ opinion see M. Cvtowska, “ Erastne de Rotterdam et Marsile ficin
1489; Allen prefers July 1464 as a terminus ante quem. son maitre, Eos 63 (1976): 165-179 (Erasmus early admiration gives way to a moic
122 See App. 18A. One possible ground for an idem sentire between Ficino and Trebi- critical stance after Erasmus masters Greek) and Allen, Erasmus, 11: 129 (Grynaeus
zond was their common appreciation for Leonardo Bruni and their common dislike of redaction of Ficino’s Plato compared unfavorably with the original).
the arrogant John Argyropoulos. In two letters which were well known in Florence 125 See App. 18B and Hankins (1986). See also Texts 87 and 88 for the estimation in
George attacked Argyropoulos for having corrected Bruni’s translation of lagathon to sum- which Ficino’s translation came to be held in the sixteenth century. In the seventeenth
mum bonum in the latter’s version of the Nicomachean Ethics-, Bessarion clearly sided with century, Grvnaeus would be blamed for “ contaminating with corrections the text of
‘our John” in the controversy, and was also critical of Bruni’s Plato translations (see Ficino's translation (see Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca [next note], 3:127).
above, p. 237, note 190). For the circulation of George’s letters in Florence, see Trapezun- I2h Earlier judgments about Ficino’s translation are collected in Fabricius, Bibliotheca
tiana, pp. 101-108. Graeca, 4th edn. (Hamburg, 1793). .3: 71, 127-128, 131. I he strictures of D. Huctius.
312 P A R T IV FLORENCE 313

version, w here it exists, has usually taken the form of com plaints about tional on F icin o ’s p art or n o t.128 A few im provem ents in the m oral tone
his rath er w ooden style, w hich, it is ju stly felt, fails to do justice to P la to ’s of the Lysis are likely to be pious m isread in g s.129 O nly w ith the Charmides
subtle elegance. W ithout going to the extrem es of the m edieval ad verbum is there a clear case of bow dlerization, and here Ficino him self (unlike his
translation, Ficino rem ains as literal as possible w ithout sacrificing p ro ­ h u m an ist predecessors) openly adm its w hat he has done. At the begin­
priety of diction. H e is helped in this by a ra th e r liberal notion of p ro p rie­ n in g of the Charmides Socrates is represented as having been sm itten by
ty, wKich p erm its him to m ake use of m edieval and non-classical syntax the physical beau ty of a young boy and as having “ bu rst into flam e’’ at
and vocabulary w here it suits his tu rn . A lthough he perm its him self the a glim pse of the “ inw ards of his g arm e n t” and as having been consum ed
occasional gloss, he now here takes the sort of liberties w ith the L atin text w ith an “ anim al lu st” . Ficino om its this passage (about six lines) show ­
taken by B runi o r (in the Laws) by T reb izo n d . ing Socrates in the throes of physical passion for C h arm id es and else­
O f course Ficino is a N eoplatonist, and that o rientation has left its w here translates kalos and kallistos, “ p re tty ” , as honestum and
m ark on the L atin version; in som e dialogues the careful reader is aw are honestissimum. (T his m ight be a reasonable translation elsew here—C icero
of a N eoplatonic read in g info rm in g the version on nearly every page. In translates the Stoic kalos as honestus— but clearly not in this context.) In
his version of the Meno, for instance, Ficino has done his best, w ithout the arg u m en t to the translation, how ever, Ficino gives us an explanation
grossly altering the text, to discourage the read er from finding the doc­ or excuse for his tam perings w ith the text: “ A lthough everything in this
trine of tran sm ig ratio n in P la to ’s w ords. Ficino always denied that Plato dialogue has a m arvelous allegory, most of all the love-passages—ju st like
had held such a doctrine (in one place he scolds Plotinus for so in te r­ the Song of Solomon— I have nevertheless changed a few things and have
preting him ), and hence ren d ers the P latonic doctrine of recollection so even om itted a few things. For things w hich once sounded harm onious
as to suggest th at recollection should be understood as a higher m ental to the p ure ears of the A ttic G reeks will perhaps sound m uch less h a r­
state fath er th a n a m em ory of a previous existence. In the Phaedo, and m onious to cru d er ears. T h u s a certain H o m erian (or ra th e r Platonist),
generally in the Socratic dialogues, Ficino renders a characteristic A ristarchus, used to say that w hatever things seem less th an harm onious
Platonic phrase for the sep aratio n of ratio n al enquiry from sense and should be set dow n not to Plato b ut to C h ro n u s” [i.e ., to T im e ].130*
opinion (aute kath’auten gignetai) in light of P lo tin u s’ doctrine of reversion T h e re is thus a difference betw een F icino’s censorship and that of
to the cause (seipsum in se recipiens). In the fam ous “ D ivided L in e ’’ earlier h u m anists. W hereas w ith B runi an d the other earlier translators,
passage of Republic VI, Ficino even goes so far as to im pose a late Platonic one suspects a certain hypocrisy in presenting Plato as wise, virtuous,
or N eoplatonic logic of collection an d division upon a passage w hich is and pious, in the fifteenth-century sense of those w ords, in the present
probably best in terp reted as an exam ple of Socratic hypothetical m ethod. case Ficino is obviously sure that P lato ’s intention was virtuous, and that
A nd there is, as in the case of B ru n i’s tran slations, a general tendency there is a valuable allegorical m eaning beneath P lato ’s words, but thinks
to m ute discord and soften radical o p positions— though in F icino’s case that the co rru p t m ores of his own age unfortunately m ake the om ission
this m ust proceed from a N eoplatonic dislike for real d ialectic.127
In none of these cases, surely, w ould Ficino have felt that he was m is­ 128 For the passage (48ID) of the Gorgias censored by Bruni, see App. 3B. Ficino here
representing Plato. T h e few instances w here Ficino bow dlerizes Plato, follows Bruni’s translation of the entire paragraph very closely, so that his bowdlerization
is conceivably the result ot excessive respect for Bruni’s translation. Yet Ficino s use of
how ever, are m ore com plicated. Ficino follows B runi in one bow dleriza- Bruni was generally critical (see App. 18A) and even here he has evidently followed Bruni
tion in the Gorgias, though it is difficult to be sure w hether this was inten- with one eye on the Greek, since two lines before the passage in question he restores a
two-word response of Callicles’ omitted in Bruni’s version.
129 In the Lysis (see esp. 204D) Ficino renders xako <; “ pretty” , as honestus\ epacrrfi?,
De interpretatione (Paris. 1661), p. 295, and of the abbe Claude Fleury, Trade du choix et de “ lover” , as amicus; and toxiS ixcx, “ catamite” , as “ puerilis lusus . For the meaning of
la methods des Etudes (Paris, 1687), pp. 195-196, and apparently of Grynaeus are mainly these terms, see Plato: Symposium , ed. K. O. Dover (Cambridge, 1980), p. 3f.
directed against Ficino’s style. For modern views of Ficino’s translations, see J. 130 O p . , p. 1304 * Platonis opera 1491, f. 97v: “ Etsi omnia in hoc dialogo mirificam ha-
Festugiere, La philosophie de Tamour de M arsile Ficin (Paris, 1941), Appendice I; P. Henry, bent [habeant Op. ] allegoriam, amatoria maxime, non aliter quam Cantica Salomonis,
“ Les tnanuscrits grecs de travail de Marsile Ficin, traducteur de Plotin,” in Congres de mutaui tamen non nihil, non nihil etiam praetermisi. Quae enim consonabant
Tours et Poitiers (Association Guillaume Bude) (Paris, 1954), p. 326; H.-R. Schwyzer, castigatissimis auribus Atticorum rudioribus forte auribus minime consonarent. Ideoque
reviewing Harder’s German translation in Gnomon 32 (1960): 35; Allen (1981b), pp. Aristarchus quidam homericus, immo uero platonicus, quae minus consonant diceret
40-44; A. Wolters, “ The First Draft of Ficino’s Translation of Plotinus,” in Ritomo non Platonis esse, sed Chroni.” Ficino also drew the comparison between Platonic love
1:305-329; and Hankins (1986). and the Song of Solomon in his Phaedrus commentary, cap. 2 (ed. Allen [ 198lb], pp.
127 For all this see Hankins (1986) and App. 18A. 78-79); it had earlier been drawn by Bessarion (see above, p. 260).
 314 P A R T IV FLORENCE 315

of ^ome of those words p ru d en t and necessary. (T h e contrast with parts at least of the Platonic dialogues as divinely-inspired, full of
Bes^arion, for whom it was A thenian, not C h ristian , society whose mores m ysteries and capable of being interpreted at m any different levels.133134
wenj: inferior, is striking.) In fact, th ro u g h o u t his translation of the A nd in “ w orking” translations m ade for his private use, we know that
Platpnic corpus, Ficino sharply curtails the tendency characteristic of Ficino em ployed a technique very close to ad verbum. 134 Surely it would
earlier translators of Plato to bow dlerize, C hristianize, or om it passages have been not only possible b ut n atu ral that Ficino in his published
(or entire dialogues) felt to be unsu itab le for C hristian ears. T he translations use some form of literal rendering rath er th an a m ethod of
references, for instance, to hom osexual love in the Phaedrus, Lysis, and translation w hich presupposes, as does the h u m anist, the influence of
Symposium, bow dlerized by B runi and D ecem brio, the em barrassing tim e and social processes upon language?
m entions of S o crates’ daimon, exhibited triu m p h an tly by T rebizond, the It is no d o u b t w rong to look for too m uch m ethodological consistency
peculiar social teachings of Republic V w hich Pier C an d id o D ecem brio from Ficino, who has indeed never been accused of an excessive concern
had attem pted to gloss over and w hich B runi had refused to translate, the for consistency of any kind. Ficino m ust, certainly, have been influenced
tolefant discussions in the Laws, Euthyphro and elsewhere of polytheistic by the needs of the audience he was addressing. H is devoted circle of
practices, frequently C hristian ized by hum anist tran slato rs— all are laym en and am ateu rs w ould certainly have been alienated from Plato if
rendered accurately by Ficino w ith adm irab le sang-froid. to u n d erstan d his m ean in g they were com pelled to have an opaquely
literal text pulverized for them w ord by w ord in the scholastic m a n n e r.135*
* * *
A nd Ficino was of course deeply colored with the cultural prejudices of
W e have now to look at F icin o ’s theory of translation to see w hether it F lorentine h u m anism , even though he at tim es m ain tain ed a critical
can give us any help in in terp retin g two special features of Ficino’s distance from the values of rhetorical culture. But there m ay have been
translation which have em erged from the preceding account: nam ely, other, m ore philosophical reasons why Ficino felt he could use a less than
F icin o ’s use o f an ad sententiam style of tran slation, and his relative lack literal style of translation. In the prefaces to his translations of Dionysius
of interest in im posing m oral and religious censorship upon the Platonic A reopagita and Plotinus he hints that he took a rath er different view of
text. U n fo rtu n ately Ficino, unlike B runi, D ecem brio and T rebizond, the role of the tran slato r than was traditional am ong those who practiced
now here gives us a connected exposition o f his ideas on translation, so ad verbum translation. T h e norm al attitude of the literal tran slato r in the
som e of o u r conclusions will necessarily rem ain speculative. patristic and m edieval periods was to regard a sacred text as being
It was by no m eans inevitable that Ficino should choose to follow the beyond the ability of m en wholly to com prehend, as reflecting in its very
hum anistic ad sententiam m ethod of tran slatio n . W e have seen already that w ord o rder im ponderable m ysteries beyond the reach of language ( “ ubi
T reb izo n d and Filelfo thought that “ things sublim e and difficult to et ordo verb o ru m m ysterium e st” as Je ro m e w rote); the only possible
u n d e rsta n d ” , especially religious texts, should be ren d ered literally, and way to translate, in consequence, was for the in terp reter to try in hum ili­
this view cannot be said to have grow n w eaker w ith the spread of ty to create an artificial diction based on L atin which w ould duplicate the
h u m an ism — it survives, indeed, especially in religious contexts, to the
present d a y .131 W e know th at N eoplatonic views of language are Translation in Sixteenth-Century Germany,” Modern Language Review, 40 (1945): 289-
299; K. O. Apel, ‘‘Die Idee der Sprache in der Tradition des Humanismus von Dante
historically associated w ith belief in the superiority of literal translation, bis V ico,” Archiv fuer Begriffsgeschickte, 8 (Bonn, 1963).
as, for that m atter, are theories of n a tu ra l language such as that found 133 See below, p. 335f.; for Ficino’s notion of divine inspiration in Plato and Socrates,
in P la to ’s Cratylus,132 W e know , m oreover, that Ficino regarded certain see Allen (1984b), chapter 1; Allen (1986), pp. 432-434, 455.
134 See Allen (1981b), pp. 40-45, for Ficino’s nearly literal version of Hermias In Phae-
drum. In his youth, as Ficino wrote in a letter to Martin Uranius (Opera, p. 933),
131 Bessarion also considered ad verbum translations to have greater authority in his ‘‘Argonautica et hymnos Orphei et Homeri et Proculi, Theologiamque Hesiodi ...
Calunqmator IV .2 = Mohler 2:459. Of course in practice the ‘‘literal” translations ol adolescens, nescio quomodo, ad verbum mihi soli transtuli.” The attribution to Ficino
humanists were a far cry from the pedissequent literalism of the high Middle Ages, and of literal Latin versions of Orphic Hymns and other pagan theological writings preserved
Ficinb’s use ol the ad sententiam method of translation was more restrained than Bruni s in MS Laur. X XX V I, 35 has now been thrown into doubt by I. Klutstein, Marsilio Ficino
or other humanists’. et la theologie ancienne: Oracles Chaldaiques, Hymnes Orphiques, Hymnes de Proclus, Quaderni di
For the special attraction to ad verbum translation in the sixteenth century among Rinascimento, no. 5 (Florence, 1987).
Platonists and other believers in natural religion, see J. Porcher, ‘‘La theologie naturelle 135 For Argyropoulos’ difficulties in keeping the attention of his noble young Floren­
et les theories de la traduction au XVIe siecle.” in Michel de Montaigne, Oeuvres com­ tines when using the traditional scholastic methods of the lectio see Field. Origins, chapter
pletes, ed. A. Armaingaud (Paris, 1935), 10:447-479; and W. Schwarz, '‘The Theory of
316 PART rv FLORENCE 317

linguistic and syntactical p roperties of the original language, tru sting to A sim ilar sentim ent appears in the preface to his translation of Plotinus:
gloss and com m entary to overcom e obscurities and “ open u p ” the Hence the same divinity, through the mouth of both [Plato and Plotinus],
depths of m eaning ben eath the littera. P a rt of this view of translation poured out divine oracles for the human race, oracles worthy in both cases of
Ficino clearly accepts. H e declares in a n u m b e r of places that the Platonic a most sagacious translator [or interpreter] who in Plato's case must devote
dialogues were sacred texts, and as such w ere, strictly speaking, u n ­ his efforts to unveiling what is hidden, and who in Plotinus’ case must labor
more carefully at once to express everywhere his most secret meanings as well
translatable.
as to explain his most gnomic expressions. Remember, moreover, that you
1 do not claim to have completely expressed in these books the Platonic will by no means penetrate to the exalted mind of Plotinus using merely sense
Style, nor can it ever again, I trust, be expressed by anyone, however more or human reason; you must employ a certain more sublime intuitive under­
learned. His style, I say, is similar more to a divine oracle than to human standing [mens, Ficino’s Latin for the Plotinian nous]. ... Would that in inter­
eloquence, now thundering deeply, now flowing with the sweetness of nec­ preting his mysteries I had the aid of Porphyry, Eustochius, or Proclus who
tar, but always enfolding the hidden things of H eaven.136 set in order and expounded the books of Plotinus. But I hope that in
translating and explaining the divine books of Plotinus Marsilio Ficino shall
Yet Ficino seems also to have believed it was possible for the translator, not lack what is a far more blessed help—divine aid.139*
too, to have a m easure of divine in sp iratio n , giving him in tu rn greater
In short, the divinization of h u m an n atu re which is at the heart of
freedom to ren d er the littera in accordance with his own inner light.
F icin o ’s Platonism appears also in the context of his translation theory.
P la to ’s Ion, he thought, was au th o rity for the view that not only poets,
T h e tran slato r and in terp reter of sacred texts can be filled with the same
but interpreters could be divinely in s p ire d .137 O r as he w rote in the pref­
divine illum ination that the authors of those texts enjoyed; and this, we
ace to his version of D ionysius A reopagita:
m ay well suppose, was, paradoxically, one reason why Ficino, for all his
Thus, drunk with the unmixed Dionysian wine our Dionysius exults N eoplatonic conceptions of language and textuality, felt able to em ploy
throughout, pouring out enigmas, intoning dithvrambic songs. How
the freer hum anistic m ethods of translation.
toilsome it is, for this reason, to penetrate with the understanding his
deeper meanings, how difficult to imitate the wonderful arrangement of his W e have still to account for the relative absence of m oral and religious
words, the almost Orphic character of his diction, and to express them, censorship characteristic of F icin o ’s translation, and here too we en ­
especially in Latin. Surely to achieve this easily we stand entirely in need co u n ter a seem ingly paradoxical relationship betw een F icino’s N eoplato­
of divine inspiration. Using the same prayer we must implore the Trinity nism and his scholarship. T h e doctrinal and im itative styles of
that the light which God once poured out in response to Dionysius’ pious in terp retatio n em ployed by early students of Plato from B runi to T re b i­
efforts to penetrate the prophetic and apostolic mysteries—that that same
light God might now pour out on us who supplicate him in like fashion to zond lacked the herm eneutical pow er to assim ilate certain elem ents at
let us grasp and express Dionysius’ meaning and eloquence.138 least in the Platonic dialogues to the prejudices of their intended au ­
dience. Ficino, on the other h and, was able to absorb these elem ents
precisely because the exegetical resources native to his m ethod of in ter­
i:'b Prooemium in hbros Platoms in Op . , p. 1129 = Platonis opera 1491, sign, lva: “ Neque
uero me Pfatonicum in his libris stvlum omnino expressisse profiteor, neque rursus ab p retation gave him a far greater pow er to adjust the Platonic text to the
ullo, quamuis admodum doctiore, unquam exprimi posse confido. Stvlum inquam non horizon of contem porary society. T h u s a herm eneutical approach to
tarn humano eloquio, quam diuino oraculo similem, saepe quidem tonantem altius, Plato w hich (from a m odern point of view) is m ethodologically less sound
saepe uero nectarea suauitate manantem, semper autem arcana celestia com-
plecttfntem.” Ficino, like Trebizond, recognizes the need to preserve also the ambiguities
of the original; see his argument to Laws I V (O p., p. 1500) nobis similiter supplicantibus ad illius sensum eloquiumque consequendum et exprimen-
137 See his Argumentum in lonem (O p., p. 1283 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 59vb): “ Ex quo dum feliciter nunc infundat.”
[qua Op. ] patet quod interpres poetae Ion, et alii multi qui similiter affecti sunt, diuino 139 Ibid., p. 1548 = Plotini opera 1492, sign. Bii recto\ “ Idem itaque numen per os utrun-
instipctu [instincto Op. ] alienam poesim interpretantur.’’ For Ficino’s belief that he pos­ que humano generi diuina fundit oracula, utrobique sagacissimo quodam interprete
sessed the closely-allied gift of prophecy, see p. 278, above. digna, qui ibi quidem in euoluendis figmentorum incumbat inuolucris, hie uero turn in
1i8; Op . , p. 1013: "Hoc igitur Dionvsiaco mero Dionysius noster ebrius exultat passim. exprimendis secretissimis ubique sensibus, turn in explanandis uerbis quam breuissimis
EHupdit aenigmata, concinit dithvrambos. Itaque quam arduum est profundos illius sen- diligentius elaboret. Mementote praeterea, uos haudquamquam uel sensu comite, uel
sus intelligentia penetrare, tarn difficile miras uerborum compositiones et quasi Or- humana ratione duce, sed mente quadam sublimiore excelsam Plotini mentem
phicum dicendi characterem imitari, ac Latinis praesertim uerbis exprimere. Idem penetraturos. ... Atque utinam in mysteriis huius interpretandis adminiculum Porphyrii
prolecto ad id tacile consequendum necessarius omnino nobis diuinus est furor. Eadem aut Eustochii aut Proculi, qui Plotini libros disposuerunt atque exposuerunt, nobis
prorsus oratione trinitas obsecranda, ut quod Dionysio pie petenti [petendi ed.\ lumen, adesset. Spero tamen id quod admodum foelicius est, diuinum auxilium in traducendis
ad p<tnetranda Prophetarum, Apostolorumque mvsteria, quondam Deus infudit, idem explicandisque divinis Plotini libris Marsilio Ficino non defuturum.”
 318 P A R T IV FLORENCE 319

thari the hum anist approach, resulted paradoxically in a translation several volum es, at the expense of Lorenzo d e ’M edici. H ad it been
which from every point is su p erio r to the hum anistic versions. T o realized, the edition m ight have stood next to the great A ldine edition of
F iciho’s in terp retatio n of the P latonic corpus, therefore, we now tu rn . the works of Aristotle as one of the tw in peaks of Fifteenth-century
philosophical scholarship.
T h e downfall of the M edici in 1494 b rought an end to F icino’s dream
3. Ficino on Socrates, Plato, and the Platonic Corpus
of a grand edition of Plato w hich would sum up his lifetim e of work on
V irtually from the m om ent he found his calling as a teacher of Platonic the philosopher. W hat we have instead, in print, are two distinct
wisdom to the end ol his life Ficino was involved, in various ways and m om ents in the evolution of F icino’s larger project.
with varying degrees of intensity, in the task of in terp retin g the Platonic T h e 1484 edition contains the dialogues in translation w ithout subdivi­
dialogues to his friends and follow ers.1+0 Yet despite an exegetical activity sions and accom panied by argum ents and epitom es. T hese latter
extending over some forty years, the w ritten rem ains of F icino’s teaching resem bled em bryonic com m entaries rath er than sim ple textual sum ­
on Plato, the argu m en ts, epitom es, lecture fragm ents, com m entaries and m aries, as the term s m ight suggest. O ne of them , the argum ent to the
distikctiones, display a rem ark ab le u n ity o f purpose. Indeed, his concep­ Epinomis, had evidently begun its grow th tow ards a full com m entary
tion of the Platonic corpus, w hich will be treated in this section, positively w hen it was ripped unkindly from F icino’s hands by the p rin te r’s
required him to plan his exegesis of the dialogues in a holistic fashion. d e v il.143 O nly for two dialogues, the Symposium and the Timaeus, was
F icino’s ultim ate aim , realized m ost fully in the cases of the Parmenides
and Timaeus com m entaries, was to divide each dialogue in the corpus into etc., and also by the fact that the Theology was printed together with the Platonis opera omnia
chapters and subheadings, to add a short n arrative sum m ary of the sec­ in the 1491 edition (App. 22B, no. 8). At Op., p. 855 Ficino calls his Platonic Theology a
tion after every chapter h eading, an d to provide each dialogue w ith a full “ quasi commentarium’’ on his translation of Plato. See also the letter to Martin Prenn-
inger in Op., p. 899 = Klibansky (1939). p. 46: “ Argumenta in libros [Platonisj nostra
com m entary treating its m ost difficult problem s and its sublim est et libri, quos etiam habes, nostri De immortalitate ammorum [sc. the Platonic rheology]
m ysteries.141 T h e com m entaries w ould be fully integrated w ith each potissimum inscripti, Platonica tamen universa complexi.” Other cross references show
other and with F icino’s ow n Platonic Theology by a system of cross that Ficino had planned at least the topics of his Timaeus commentary before it was actual­
ly written; see for instance the argument to Rep. X {O p., p. 1434) where Ficino says,
references.142 T h e whole was to be m agnificently printed, no d oubt in writing of the harmonies of the celestial spheres, that “ in Timaei commentariis oppor-
tunius explicpFimus. ” See also a similar remark in the Phaedo argument {O p ., p. 1394).
1+0 The intention of the next two sections is not to provide a detailed account of It may be significant that the two commentaries which come closest to fulfilling Ficino’s
Ficino’s interpretation of Plato, a task far beyond the scope of this book, but rather to program are those on the Prm. and the T i. ; these are the two dialogues regarded by Pro-
characterize in general terms Ficino’s view of Plato and the Platonic corpus and to clus as containing Plato’s doctrine on metaphysical and natural matters in its purest and
analyze the hermeneutical methods Ficino employs in his exegesis of the dialogues. Not­ sublimest forms. See Proclus, Theologie Platomcienne, ed. Saffrev and Westerink (Paris,
withstanding the enormous influence of Ficino's interpretation of Plato on early modern 1968), 1:lxxiii-lxxv, and Proclus, Comment, in Tim ., ed. Diehl, 1.13.4— 1.14.2. The Prm.
intellectual history, his Plato commentaries have received very little detailed attention and the Ti. also formed the culmination of the Neoplatonic teaching cycle; see
from modern scholars. The best and practically the only informed treatments of the sub­ Westerink’s introduction to his edition of Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy
ject dre the studies of Michael J. B. Allen, listed in the Abbreviations and the notes to (Amsterdam, 1962), pp. xxxvii-xxxviii; and Allen (1989), chapter 1.
this section, to which I am indebted for much of the following, despite my rather different 143 Ficino begins his argument {O p., pp. 1525-1530 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 323va) by
aim and perspective. See also the introductions to Comm, in Conv., ed. Marcel, and Mar- telling Lorenzo of the importance of the Epinomis and remarking, “ but your Marsilio,
silio Piano: Commentary on Plato’s Symposium On Love, tr. Sears Jayne (Dallas. Texas, 1985). having promised an argument, is not permitted to furnish a more extended treatment,
Klibansky’s dismissive treatment of Ficino’s Parmenides commentary in Klibansky (1943), especially as the messengers of the printers and scribes are pressuring [me] for the opus,
pp. 316-325, has been justly criticized in Allen (1986). A more detailed summary of the impudently snatching arguments from my hands, and scarce allowing me in each volume
textual history and editions of the individual commentaries is provided in App. 19. to outline the merest surface of the matter.” (This statement also implies that the hand­
141 That this was Ficino’s plan for the definitive edition may be inferred from his letter written dedication copies and the printed edition were prepared at the same time, a mat­
of 1401 to Martinus Uranius (Suppl . 1:CXVIII) taken together with what was actually ter which has been the subject of some uncertainty.) He then proceeds, without
printed in the 1496 edition of the commentaries, discussed below. The intention to write connective, to begin an argument. After a page of summary, he writes, “ Id autem libri
comrhentaries on all the dialogues is documented by Kristeller in Suppl. l.CXVIIff. The totius est argumentum” , then adds three and a half pages more of commentary. This
plan for chapters and subheadings recalls Decembrio’s practice in his translation of the structure is analogous to the expansion of the original argument of the Phaedrus from three
Republic and may have been intended for similar reasons, i.e ., to counter charges that chapters in the 1484 version (followed by the statement “ Hec fuerit hactenus totius
Platops dialogues were lacking in order; see also below, p. 333. dialogi summa” ) to eight chapters in the 1496 version; see Allen (1981b), pp. 20, 83.
1+2 The close relationship between Ficino’s translation of Plato and his Platonic Theology If we take the asyndeton after “ vestigia rerum” {O p ., p. 1526, line 3), together with the
is shown by the multitude of cross-references in the former to the latter, for example at analogy to the Phaedrus revision, it seems highly plausible that the original argumentum
O p . , pp. 1306, 1390, 1396, 1408, 1411, 1489, 1490, 1508, 1518, 1524, 1527, 1531, 1535, written during the late 1460s (see App. 19) extended from O p., p. 1526, line 3,
320 P A R T IV FLORENCE 321

Ficino able to p repare virtually com plete com m entaries for the 1484 edi­ project to provide a com plete and integrated fram e of com m entary and
tion. (T h e m assive Philebus co m m en tary , w hich had reached less than study aids for the Platonic corpus.
half jts projected length by 1484, was excluded and its place taken by the
* * *
short a rg u m e n tu m w ritten for C osim o d e ’M edici in 1464). Ficino was
very u n h ap p y w ith this p rin tin g , considering it a squalid piece of work Such, in outline, is the history of F icino’s activities as a co m m entator on
m arked “ negligentia im pressorum vel potius o p p resso ru m ” . 144 H e ex­ Plato. W e cannot, how ever, go on to describe F icino’s conscious m ethods
pressed m ore satisfaction with the second edition of 1491, which had been and techniques of exegesis w ithout first attem pting to reconstruct, as far
prepared w ithout his active collaboration; in it, the corrigenda to the first as we m ay, w hat Ficino took to be the historical facts reg ard in g Socrates,
editipn were inserted and a n u m b e r of p rin tin g errors co rrected .145 P lato, and the Platonic corpus. T his is not to say that Ficino was him self
T h e 1496 edition of the Commentana in Platonem represents a sim ilar aw are th at establishing the interpretandum, the historical reality displayed
com prom ise w ith F icin o ’s ideal edition of Plato. T h e volum e contains an in the texts, required antecedently an effort of historical in terp retatio n
extensive new co m m en tary on the Parmenides and a sho rter one on the and criticism before any interpretatio could be applied. Such an aw areness
"P lato n ic n u m b e r” in Book V III of the Republic, together with an ex­ did not exist p rio r to the rise of m odern historical herm eneutics in the
panded version of the 1484 Timaeus co m m entary and the Phaedrus early m odern period. Ficino, like m ost other prem odern in terpreters, felt
arg u m en tu m ; the unfinished Philebus co m m en tary was finally included that the past experience revealed by the Platonic texts was (qua historical
with only m in o r revisions to the text as it had existed in the 1470s. T he reality) som ehow directly available to him .
Sophist arg u m en t was rep rin ted (less one “ P ro clan ” scholion at the In F icino’s treatm en t of Socrates we see, if not an aw areness of what
b eg in n in g 146) w ith new Distinctiones et summae capitum. Sim ilar Distinctiones m odern scholars call the “ Socratic pro b lem ” , at least an em bryonic
were in fact added also for the Phaedrus, Timaeus, Philebus, and Parmenides. tendency to separate him from Plato both as a personality and as a
T hese perhaps began as the n arrativ e su m m aries Ficino had intended to teacher of a distinct doctrine. T h ere are of course in F icino’s description
plac$ after the ch ap ter divisions in his deluxe edition of the dialogues, on m any generic features of the copybook philosopher w hom the early R e­
the rpodel of his Plotinus edition of 1492, but ended up as appendices to naissance had inherited from the M iddle Ages and from R om an
the com m entaries, form ing a kind of depository for revisions to his earlier literature: Socrates was wise, holy, detached from w orldly goods, not
text of the tran slatio n s and for additio n al notes w hich could not conve­ subject to disfiguring passions, etc. But Ficino, as was his w ont, carried
niently be included in the co m m en tary p ro p er. T h u s the 1484 and 1496 this exem plification of Socrates to the point of hagiography, m aking of
editions of the translations and com m en taries on Plato, though in them ­ him a pagan saint, even a type of C hrist. T his exaggeration m ay have
selves very g reat achievem ents, represent b u t a part of F icino’s larger been in p a rt a response to contem porary religious critics that Socrates
was a hom osexual ignoram us; these critics, indeed, had lately been sup­
"Precedentium legum consilium est ...” to the words “ in altera fore uita omnino plied w ith new am m u n itio n by the dissem ination of L u c ia n ’s an-
beatam” at the bottom of the same page, and that the commentary passages after “ Id tiphilosophical d ialogues.147 T h u s in a letter to the theologian Paulus
autem libri totius est argumentum” and the opening passage were added while the Ferobans he responds to the u n kind witticism s of L ucian upon Socratic
volume was already in press. A full commentary on the Epinomis was, however, never
finished. ignorance by show ing that Socrates was in fact not only m ost wise, but
144 See Ficino’s letter to Francesco Bandini in O p., p. 872. also saintly and C h ristlik e.148*In his own country of A thens he went with
145 See S u ppl. , p. CLV.
146 The material relative to the Sophist included in the 1496 edition does not amount
to a fdll commentary of the type Ficino elsewhere employed, although the Distinctiones and 147 C. Robinson, Lucian and H is Influence in Europe (Chapel Hill, 1979), pp. 14-15,
summae capitum form what is virtually a running commentary. The original argument in 99-100.
the 1484 edition contained at the beginning a translation of a scholion from Ficino’s 148 O p ., p. 868. The passage of Lucian referred to is Dialogues of the Dead 6.5-6, where
Greek manuscript (Laur. LXXXV, 9, f. 78r = Scholia Platomca, p. 40 = Platonis opera Socrates is made out to be a homosexual simpleton. The passage seems to have been used
[1484], f. 62ra, “ Sophistam Plato vocat ... cum proprio Socrate versatur” ). Ficino at­ by some of Ficino’s own detractors in order to twist his descriptions of Socrates into a
tributed the scholion to Proclus, apparently because it contained the doctrine of the three less pleasing shape. See also the argument to the Phd. (O p., pp. 1390-1395) for a parallel
minop demiurges, which is found in Proclus, In Tim. 1.156, lines 5-7, 1.74,11. 15-16, and treatment of Socrates’ life as “ a kind of image or at least a shadow of the vita Christiana" -,
In C rat. , ed. Pasquali, p. 84ff.; see J .M . Dillon, lamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos cp. also Allen (1981b), p. 134. For Ficino’s knowledge of Lucian’s De venditione et emptione
cornmentanoTum fragmenta, p. 246. This scholion was for some reason dropped in the 1496 philosophorum (made into a moral tale against philosophers by Ficino’s teacher Luca d’An-
Commentana-, the matter is discussed in Allen (1989). tonio Bernardi), see Marcel, pp. 171-172. Ficino’s presentation of Socrates (and Plato)
322 P A R T IV FLORENCE 323

out honor and un d erw en t willingly ju d icial m u rd er for telling the truth- such as ‘that God is not a body’ rather than what God is. ...” This is how
he sfiffered h u n g er and nakedness, reproved sinners, tu rn ed the other Socrates both knows and teaches many things.150
che^k to those who struck him , h ated pride and “ the am bitious profes­
Socratic ignorance is thus understood in term s of a P roclan/D ionysian
sion of the sciences” , was gentle, h um ble, charitable, and chaste. Ficino
negative theology. So also w ith Socratic m ethod. T h e latter is regarded
ever) points out (but, p ru d en tly , in praeteritio) some typological parallels
by m odern com m entators like R alph R obinson as a kind of Popperian
betw een C h rist and Socrates: how at S o crates’ “ last su p p e r” (in the
critical rationalism ; Ficino, how ever, took a m arkedly different view. For
Phaedo, 117C-118A) Socrates took a cup, gave a blessing, and m en ­
him , S ocrates’ m ethod w orked as a purgative to free the m ind of intellec­
tioned a cock; how th irty pieces of m oney h ad been given to betray him ,
tual pride and false opinions, purifying it so that it m ight receive divine
how he had been transfig u red by co n tem plation; and how his disciples
illum ination. T his was as m uch a m oral as an intellectual process, and
had gone about after his d eath p reach in g “ things by which the C hristian
it was as legitim ate a form of teaching as the h an ding dow n of precepts.
faitfl is co n firm e d .”
T o represent Socrates thus as a p ro to -C h ristian holy m an of course You should notice that Socrates was wont to inquire rather than to teach
for many reasons. First, to admonish the arrogant that one should learn
required some m odification o f the Socrates of the early dialogues, the
throughout life rather than teach. Second, to indicate that truth is
gadfly and satyr who accosts p retty young boys and pom pous straightway poured by divine means into our minds through a suitable pro­
p o ly p a th s, an d , professing ignorance, ends by p u n ctu rin g their illusions cess of questioning when separated from errors arising from the body.
with his chop-logic and hom ely analogies. As Ficino sees it, S ocrates’ Third, to show that the forms of things are innate in our minds [and]
pose of know ing ignorance could be in terp reted in two ways. In the through them the very truth of being sometimes glimmers when our minds
are turned towards them through interrogation. Fourth, to make known
Euthyphro it is purely ironic, a way of gently m ocking “ the am bitious
that human knowledge [of the divine] consists in a kind of negation of the
professors of divine law ” . G enerally, how ever, his profession of ig­ false rather than in affirming the true.151
norance Socrates m ean t to be taken as an expression of the hum ility he
felt when confronted w ith divine things. Socrates is not of course truly T h ere is not m uch in all this that distinguishes Socrates strongly from
ignorant, having been filled often and ecstatically with divine wisdom, Plato, especially since Plato is also declared to have used the Socratic
but his pose of ignorance is ad o p ted to m ake it clear that his wisdom m ethod, but elsewhere a few individual features do em erge. Like Plato,
comes from G od (via his m o n ito ry daimonion149), not th ro u g h the natural Socrates is seen as a prophet and priest, lover and poet, b u t in Socrates
powers of reason:
But let me dwell for a moment on two doubtful matters. The first is that 150 Op., p. 1389 (Arg. in A p .) = Platoms opera 1491, f. 167va-vb: “ Sed duo parumper
Socratic utterance repeated here, as frequently elsewhere: “ This I know me dubia remorantur. Primum Socraticum illud et hie et saepe alibi repetitum: Hoc
at least, that I know nothing.” Yet many times both here and elsewhere equidem unum scio, quod nihil scio. Multa tamen et hie et alibi affirmat quasi sciens.
he affirms things as though he had knowledge. But this statement is similar Sed hoc illi simile est: Ego dixi in excessu meo, omnis homo mendax. Ait itaque Socrates:
Ego abstractus a corpore, raptus a daemone, illustratus a Deo, scio equidem in diuino
to that other one: “ I have said in my ecstasy that every man is a liar.”
lumine hoc unum, uidelicet quod alioquin coniunctus corpori nihil in lumine naturah
Thus Socrates says: “ Abstracted from the body, seized by a daemon, il­ scio. Nescio, inquam, in naturali lumine res ipsas per ipsum [ipsam Op ] affirmationis
luminated by God, I for my part know in the divine light this one thing, modum. Eiusmodi enim scientia Dei propria est, qui et naturas ipsas et naturarum
namely, that when conjoined with the body I know nothing in the natural causas comprehendit, cum ipsemet fecerit. Scio tamen multa per quendam negationis
light. By the light of nature, I say, I do not know true being through the modum, veluti quod Deus non sit corpus, potius quam quid sit ... Atque hoc pacto
mode of affirmation. This kind of knowledge is proper to God, who com­ Socrates et scit et docet multa.” For Socratic ignorance as irony in the Euthyphro, see Op . ,
prehends the natures themselves and the causes of natures, having himself p. 1312. For a general treatment of Socratic irony in the Renaissance, see D. Knox,
made them. Yet I know many things through a certain way of negation, Ironia: Medieval and Renaissance Irony, forthcoming in Columbia Studies in the Classical
Tradition.
151 Op., p. 1397 {Arg. in Remp. I) = Platoms opera 1491, f. 189rb: “ Te uero latere non
debet, multis de causis Socratem quaerere solitum semper [om. Op. ] potius quam docere.
Prima, ut arrogantes admoneret in omni aetate discendum esse potius quam docendum.
as holy men is of course hardly new with him; see P. Cox, “ The Ideal of the Holy Secunda, ut significaret ueritatem mentibus per opportunam inquisitionem segregatis a
Philosopher in Pagan and Christian Biographies,” in Aufsteig und Niedergang der r o e m i s c h e n corpore atque erroribus statim infundi diuinitus. ... Tertia, ut ostenderet rerum formas
W elt,' Teil II, Bd. 36.4 , ed. W. Haase (Berlin-New York, forthcoming). esse animis nostris ingenitas, per quas ipsa rerum ueritas animis per interrogationem ad
149 For a detailed discussion of Ficino’s apology for and understanding of Socrates eas [eos Op.] conuersis quandoque subrutilet. Quarta. quo declararet humanam scien-
daimon, see Allen (1984b), chapter 1. tiam in negatione quadam falsi potius quam in ueri alfirmatione consistere.”
 324 P A R T IV FLORENCE 325

the two latter roles are especially e m p h a siz e d .152 As Ficino conceives life of C hrist are not so strongly w orked o u t.156 P lato ’s life was divided
him j Socrates had a special m ission to the young. T h o u g h Plato too betw een tranquillity and ecstasy, and he was o u tstanding for his chasti­
devoted great efforts to form ing an edu catio n al doctrine, Socrates actu al­ ty, piety, and charity tow ards the entire hu m an race. W ithout being
ly w^nt out am ong the youth of A thens an d w on their love by his youthful severe or hum ourless, he aban d o n ed his worldly goods (to his brothers)
sim plicity, his jokes, gam es an d jests, his lack of elderly dignity. N o strict and practiced an ascetic way of life at his A cadem y, which was located
teacher, but a ch arm in g an d p leasant co m panion, he w alked the streets in a deserted sw am p (Ficino here draw s on Jero m e) in o rd er to help him
of Ajthens w ith a th ro n g of y oung disciples, and was able, th ro u g h the and his disciples m ortify the flesh. H e was cautious, m elancholy and
pleasure of his com pany, to reform the youth of the city and like a serious-m inded, though he lightened his gravity with gentle irony and
shepherd protect his lam bs from wolfish false lo v ers.153154But though less simple jests. (Ficino is careful to point out that his lips never broke into
grave and dignified th an P lato, S o crates’ doctrine on m oral m atters was an actual guffaw, a th in g considered vulgar and indelicate by the fif­
the piore uncom prom ising. S o crates’ teaching in the Republic proposed teenth c e n tu ry .157)
m any things “ rath er rem ote from the com m on custom of m e n ” , while T h o u g h Ficino, in keeping w ith his general concordist position, never
Platp, less of a p urist, m ixed in his Laws the divine precepts of Socrates openly criticizes him , A ristotle’s character is used repeatedly in the Life
with m ore “ h u m a n ” precepts in o rd e r to tem p er the dosage to the ailing as a negative foil to b rin g out P la to ’s virtues. A ristotle had long been
constitution of m ankind. N eedless to say, poor A ristotle cam e in third, know n as the proverbial discipulus ingratus who attacked his own
with a political doctrine th at was h u m a n simpliciter, l5+ teach er’s doctrine; Plato, by contrast, was so grateful to his teacher
F^cino’s fullest account of P lato is given in his Life of Plato, com posed in Socrates that he ascribed all his own doctrines to him (as the chief in ­
1477 as a letter to Francesco B andini an d later reprinted, w ith som e u n im ­ terlocutor of the dialogues). A ristotle, it is im plied, was som ething of a
portant changes, in his Platonis opera omnia of 1484.155 H ere too we are p re ­ peacock ab out his personal appearance; Plato was tem perate and
sented with a card b o ard philosophical saint, though the parallels w ith the detached from w orldly o p in io n .158* A ristotle handed down doctrine in
m agisterial textbooks de haut en bas, the m aster of those who knew; Plato
was th roughout his life a pilgrim to the shrine of wisdom , a m odest
152 See Allen (1984b), chapter 1. seeker of tru th , a spiritual counselor and friend. Yet A ristotle’s work,
153 This view of Socrates is most clearly presented in the Comm, in Conv. VII. 16, ed. for all its a p p aren t au th o rity and orderliness, was plodding and h um an
Marqel, p. 261). There are obvious analogies with what Ficino saw as his own role in in its inspiration, suitable chiefly for schoolboys. P lato ’s teaching,
the city ot Florence among his youthful disciples. Socrates’ special historical role as the
companion of the young is connected with what Ficino takes to be his proper function heavenly in its inspiration, was for the adults, the few, the initiated; an
in th« dialogues, which is to undertake the “ duty of purification’’, one of the two parts
of Platonic education (see below). Cp. also the Arg. in Ep. II (O p . , p. 1532 = Platonis opera
1491, 1. 328va): “ Asserit [Plato] autem quae ab ipso scribuntur esse Socratis, cuius pro-
priurti in purificando erat officium.’’ Ficino’s view of Socrates may also be influenced
by Plutarch’s acccount in his Life of Alcibiad.es, capp. 4-7. It may be compared with the 156 Ficino cannot resist repeating the stories from Diogenes Laertius III.l and John
more “ civic” Socrates of Gianozzo Manetti’s Vita Socratis, ed. M. Montuori (Florence, o f Salisbury’s Pohcraticus 7.5 (whom Ficino calls “ Policrates ) about Plato s divine
1974). See also my “ Myth of the Platonic Academy of Florence” . origin and virgin birth; a parallel with St. Peter in the garden of Gethsemane is perhaps
154 Op., p. 1488 (Arg. in Laws I); see also below, p. 340. It may here be noted that intended in the story of Xenocrates’ defense of Plato before Dionysius; and Plato is
this yiew ol political thought echoes Bessarion’s conception, and reverses the values in given the broadly Christlike fate of undergoing pain and misunderstanding because of
Aristbtle’s (and Trebizond’s) account of the history of philosophy. his devotion to truth. The whole life may be compared with a similar piece of
155 Op., pp. 763-770 = Platonis opera 1491, ff. 3r-7v; there survives in manuscript an hagiography by Guarino Veronese, discussed in Hankins (1987b).
earlidr version of the Life included as the original preface to the first draft of the Philebus 157 See Allen (1986), p. 438 for the significance of iocari serio and studiosissime ludere for
comrfientary (Suppl. 1:30-31; Allen [1975], p. 8). An English translation of the Life ap­ Laurentian intellectuals; see also the references in Allen (1981b), pp. 42-43, note 58.
pears in The Letters of Marstlio Ficino, tr. by Members of the Language Department of the 158 At O p., p. 742, Ficino reports a saying of Plato as follows: “ Erat inter discipulos
School o f E conom ic Science, London, vol. 3 (New York, 1985), pp. 32-48. This volume eius lautus nimium et curandae cutis studiosissimus adolescens, quern Plato rogauit,
also provides vanae lectiones from good manuscripts in an appendix, pp. 106-111, and the ‘Quousque tibi carcerem aedificare perges?’ ” This dictum, which I have been able to
chief sources are indicated in the notes, though it is my impression that Ficino used find in no ancient source, is meant I believe to recall Bruni s well-known Life of Aristotle,
Bessgrion and Guarino’s Life of Plato in place of some of the remoter sources indicated. where Aristotle’s “ cult of his body” is described as follows (Schriften, p. 43). Itaque,
My deconstruction ot the Ficinian Plato here is also based on a number of remarks in quo dignitatem quandam redimeret adversum corporis vitia, et vestitu paulo insigniori
the commentaries and arguments, especially those at O p., pp. 1296, 1304, 1318, 1429, utebatur, et anuli digitos honestabant, et tonsuram ceterumque corporis cultum de
1488, 1492-93, 1496, 1512, 1516, 1535-36. industria adhibebat, cum tamen reliqua in vita modestissimus esset. ”
 326 P A R T IV FLORENCE 327

appreciation o f its poetry an d h id d en theological ord er dem an d ed the dow n the differences in tone to developm ent, or em phasis or a change in
highest powers of m ind and a m a tu re religious sensibility.159 m o o d ,162 n o thing will satisfy Ficino but a com plete identity of doctrine
P la to ’s role in A thens contrasted m ost strongly w ith the sophists, those and purpose in all the Platonic dialogues. A n ything less w ould ap p aren t­
“ anjbitious professors of the divine la w ” w hom Ficino seem s to have ly com prom ise P la to ’s divine inspiration and dispassionate love of truth.
associated with scholastic theologians. P la to ’s role was that of the H en ce, like B runi, Ficino reads the rancorous interchanges am ong
spiritual guide, quietly im p ro v in g the m oral tone of society by counsel Socrates, G orgias, and Callicles as playful sparrin g concealing an un d er­
and [example. In a trope used m any tim es (to describe him self as well as purpose of serious inquiry. U ltim ately, how ever, this attem pt to
Platp), Ficino calls Plato the medicus animorum, the doctor of souls, who transpose the tonality of the dialogue into a m ajor key fails to harm onize
uses philosophy to heal the diseases of the soul as an o rd in ary doctor uses w ith the textual surface, and Ficino is com pelled to subvert the integrity
mediicine for the ills of the body. W hile scholastic philosophy and of C allicles’ dialogic persona. C allicles’ violent attack on Socratic method
theology lost itself in technical irrelevancies, Plato was always engaged is thus read as personification of P lato ’s own views:
in platitudinous uplift, w hich the fifteenth century, unlike the tw entieth,
Furthermore, where Callicles corrects Socrates as though he were overly
regarded as the pro p er behav io r o f philosophers. Plato was, in addition, devoted to subtleties, understand that the Sophists beneath the persona of
a statesm an and adviser to princes, and displayed all the virtues of the Socrates are being refuted by Plato. ... Understand the charge Callicles
courtier: he was loyal and h ig h m in d ed , h ad the courage to speak tru th seems to be making against the philosophers as directed, not against
to tyrants, abstained from flattery an d accepted no gifts from princes. legitimate philosophers, but rather partly against the basest of sophists and
partly against those who abuse the study of philosophy by pursuing logic
Finally, he was both poet an d o ra to r, not in any vulgar sense, but a true
alone in such a way that they ignore the other parts of speculation, or by
philosophical poet and divinely eloquent o ra to r.160 devoting themselves to speculation to the neglect of civil enactments and
W hat is lost in this p o rtrait of P la to ’s ch aracter and m ission m ost of philosophical precepts of good behavior.163
all is P la to ’s radical alienation from A th en ian society and politics, his b it­
W hen Ficino comes to P la to ’s bitter attack on the “ F our M e n ” , which
ter hostility to his own cultu re, his sense o f the tragedy of existence. In ­
in A m erican term s w ould be like an attack on W ashington, A dam s, Je f­
stead, Ficino gives us a gently ironic Plato whose treatm en t of others is
ferson, and Lincoln, he skips lightly over P la to ’s shocking indictm ent
uniform ly conciliatory an d w ho criticizes his interlocutors only in the
w ith the rem ark: “ H e also mocks those who, despite having long held
hope of im proving them , in a kind of fratern al correction. T h e effects of
pow er in the com m onw ealth, always were aggrandizing the state with ex­
this roseate view of Plato on his in te rp re ta tio n of the dialogues can best
ternal goods, b u t neglected to form the m inds of its citizens with
be spen in F icin o ’s a rg u m e n t to the Gorgias, p erhaps the bitterest of all
tem perance and justice, which is the sole du ty of the legitim ate ru le r.” 164*
P latp ’s works. Ficino begins, typically, w ith a prophylactic discourse
P la to ’s savage attack on the political culture of his ow n country is thus
show ing that P la to ’s ap p a re n t opposition in some dialogues to poets and
reduced to a m axim em bedded in playful-serious m ockery, and the
o ratp rs is not to be taken at face value. B ringing in parallel texts from
dialogue as a whole, which D odds describes as “ a tragic choice between
the fhaedrus an d the Republic he shows th at P la to ’s “ re a l” view distin­
guished betw een true philosophical rh etoric and popularis sive adulatona
rhet<j>ric.161 T h ere is of course n o th in g illegitim ate ab out the use of 162 See Gorgias, ed. E. R. Dodds (Oxford, 1959), p. 10.
parajlel texts. But w hereas a m o d ern co m m en tato r like D odds will bring 163 O p., p. 1318 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 119ra: “ Proinde ubi Callicles Socratem corrigit
in the Phaedrus or Republic to balance them against the Gorgias, setting quasi argutiarum nimium studiosum, intellige sub persona Socratis Sophistas a Platone
redargui. ... Quod uero afferre uidetur Callicles contra philosophos, intellige non contra
legitimos philosophos esse dicta, sed partim aduersus ignauissimos sophistarum, partim
159 See the Prooemium to Lorenzo de’Medici in the 1484 Plato ( = Op., p. 1129). This aduersus eos, qui philosophiae studio abutuntur, dum uel ita solam logicam sectantur,
too mpy be a direct reply to Bruni’s comparatio of Plato and Aristotle in his Vita Aristotehs, uel [ut Op. ] partes speculationis alias deserant, uel ita solam speculationem capessunt,
although Bruni s view was shared by many if not most other fifteenth century scholars. ut philosophica morum praecepta institutaque ciuilia negligant.” Ficino’s interpretation,
160 For Ficino’s view of Plato’s eloquence, see Allen (1981b), pp. 11-12. See also like Bruni’s, is indebted to Quintilian, Inst. 11.15.
below, p. 336. 164 Ibid., p. 1320= Ibid., f. 119va: “ Deridet et eos qui cum diu reipublicae tenuerint
161 See Op., pp. 315-320, esp. at pp. 315 and 317: “ Sed ne quis existimet Platonem, gubernacula, semper quidem ciuitatem externis bonis auxerint, animos uero ciuium
longe omnium eloquentissimum, legitimam eloquentiam coquinariae comparare, legal temperantia et iustitia formare neglexerint, quod quidem solum sit legitimi gubernatoris
Phaedrum, in quo et earn probat et finem officiumque et praecepta eius subtilissimc officium.” Ficino had earlier in his prophylactic discourse (p. 1315) claimed that Plato
tradit, asseritque ipsam esse similem medicinae.” had praised Pericles and Isocrates for conjoining philosophy and eloquence!
 328 P A R T IV FLORENCE 329

two opposed ways of life” is m uted into a pleasant and ironic pedagogical tions to a professional debate on publicly defined philosophical
exch an g e.165 “ p ro b lem s” (as they are som etim es, absurdly, presented today), nor yet
artistic depictions of intellectual life in ancient A thens. R ath er, for
* * *
Ficino, they w ere essentially educational w orks, revelations by an in­
In treatin g of Socrates and Plato, th en , Ficino com bines the practices of spired m ind of m oral and religious teachings.*168 T h a t explained why
the hag io g rap h er and the h u m an ist pedagogue to produce sketches which Plato h ad chosen the dialogue form : to m ake his teaching m ore vivid and
in m&ny ways resem ble idealized p o rtraits of him self and his activities in effective. “ Plato acts out everything in dialogues, so th at living speech
Florence; w hether F icino’s ow n ch aracter and purposes are causes or ef­ m ay p u t speaking persons before o u r eyes, so that he m ay persuade more
fects of his view of Plato is, n atu rally , a difficult thing to disentangle. A nd efficaciously an d m ove m ore d eep ly .” 169 But the educative aim of his
a sirhilar propensity to find his own w ork m irrored in P la to ’s can be teaching was always, in every dialogue, precisely the sam e. Indeed, as
detedted in F icin o ’s descriptions of the P latonic corpus. Like so m uch else Plato h ad experienced th roughout his life ecstatic visions of the G ood, in
of F icino’s thought, his im pressions of the individual dialogues were w hich he cam e to direct know ledge of tru th , it was inconceivable that his
blended from a wide variety of influences an d sources. T h o u g h there are purpose should change or develop. T o change o n e ’s views was a sign of
a nuifnber of p en etratin g insights, m ost of the m aterials of his com m en­ ignorance, and only a Sophist teaches w hat he does not know. So where
taries are dep en d en t on ancient sources. But Ficino does m ake one truly Socrates appears to play devil’s advocate, or changes sides on a question,
origihal co n trib u tio n to the history of Platonic scholarship: he was the he does so only to exercise the wits of his h e a re rs.170 What Plato w anted
first Scholar, G reek or L atin , to treat the dialogues as a real corpus, as an to teach was the pathw ay to the G ood, b ut this single purpose was to be
organically related group of w ritings in ten d ed to achieve a unified educa­ achieved in two stages, purification and conversion. In purification
tional and religious purpose. In d eed , F icino’s description of the Socrates either cured those suffering from intellectual pride by refutation
dialogues of P lato as the “ A cad em y ” was m ore than a m etaphor; for an d the elenchus, or he exhorted those already cured of such pride to
Ficino the dialogues in effect were the P latonic A cadem y, the instrum ent follow the way of virtue. In conversion, one aw aited in purity, hum ble
of religious an d political reform sent to C h ristendom by D ivine P ro ­ faith, an d love for the gift of divine illu m in atio n .171 T his two-stage
v id en ce.166 m ystical education contrasted strongly to F icino’s m ind w ith an educa­
At the risk of m aking him ap p e a r a little too consistent, one m ay, I tion in scholastic theology, w hich gave depraved an d im pious m en the il­
believe, class u n d e r five b road characteristics w hat Ficino believes to be lusion of being experts on the divine n atu re m erely because they could
the purpose, stru ctu re, and literary features of the Platonic corpus. correctly m an ip u late authorities according to the rules of logic.172*
Tfye first of these characteristics I shall call U nity of P urpose. Ficino
was convinced, like every o th er m edieval exegete of the auctores, that (“ Studium Socratis in hoc dialogo est omnes quidem ad temperantiam cohortari” ),
1307, 1493, and Allen (1975), p. 281 (“ Quod uero dixit Finem disputationis inuentionem
P lato ’s chief purpose in setting pen to p a p e r was his desire to teach. esse, non dubium, docet Platonis propositum esse doctrinam tradere non ambi-
“ O u r Plato, w ith his w onderful charity tow ards the h u m a n race, left guitates” ).
nothing u n tried in his disp u tatio n s w hich m ight seem in any way to con­ 168 This is true even of Plato’s poetical passages; see Allen (1984b), p. 43.
169 O p., p. 1129 = Platonis opera 1491, sign, alv (Praef. in Platonis opera): “ Agit autem
duce to h u m a n sa lv a tio n .” 157 P la to ’s dialogues were n eith er contribu- dialogis omnia, ut sermo uiuens personas loquentes ante oculos ponat, persuadeat ef-
Ficacius, et moueat uehementius.”
165 For another example of Ficino’s minimizing or removing the tragic element in 170 O p., pp. 1192-1193, 1201, 1405-1406. This was a traditional medieval explanation
Plato, see Allen (1981b), p. 23. It is noteworthy that Ficino follows Bruni almost word- of, or excuse for, textual difficulty.
for-wqrd in the passage (discussed below in App. 3B) where Bruni mutes Callicles’ 171 Ficino attributes (O p ., p. 1532) to the Platonists an elevation of faith above reason
“ Niet^schean” power-ethic; see Platonis opera [1491], f. 125vb). See also Ficino’s “ con- on the authority of Proclus (Platonic Theology 1.25 , ed. Salfrey-Westerink, p. 109f.). In
cordist” treatment of the Parmenides, discussed below, p. 330. fact, Proclus’ views in this respect seem to reflect the influence of late ancient religions,
1B6 For Ficino’s frequent use of the word “ Academy” as equivalent to “ Platonic cor­ including Christianity, and are markedly at variance with Plato and the Platonic tradi­
pus", see my “ Cosimo de’Medici and the ‘Platonic Academy’ ” . tion to the time of Plotinus.
167 p p . , p. 1492 (Arg. in Lgg. II ) = Platonis opera 1491, f. 271va: “ Plato noster mirifica 172 The key text here is O p., p. 1532; for its anti-authoritarian overtones, see above,
in genus hominum caritate nihil in disputationibus suis intentatum relinquit, quod ad p. 273. Compare to Proclus’ quite different account (Plat. Theol. 1.2, ed. Saffrey-
humaijiam salutem quauis ratione conducere uideatur.” There are dozens of other ex­ Westerink, p. 8f.) of the way to prepare auditors for theological speculation, an account
plicit declarations in the Commentana of Plato’s pedagogic purposes; see, for instance, Op-, which places far more accent on the differences between auditors and masters than Ficino
pp. 1^97 (“ non solum [Hippocratem] sed et nos commonefacit” ), 1300-1301, 1304 was willing to do.
330 P A R T IV FLORENCE 331

T^he assum ption of an u n d erly in g d octrinal and teleological unitv in dialogues which I shall call D ecorum of A udience. It is not the case, it
P latb ’s w ritings, which obviously owes m uch (here) to a N eoplatonic con­ should be said, that Ficino had no conception at all of chronological se­
ception of wisdom , had the consequence o f blinding Ficino to the radical quence in P la to ’s w ritings. Indeed, in the Commentary on the Symposium he
oppositions Plato lays out in his dialogues, ju st as the N eoplatonists specifically assigns the Phaedrus, Meno, and Phaedo to P la to ’s youth, and
befcjre him had tended to pass over the open-ended, dialectical character elsewhere he places the Laws and Letters I I an d V II at the end of P lato ’s
of P lato ’s discussions. W e have already seen one effect of this assum ption life.175 It is rath er that Ficino w ould not dream of explaining form al
in F icino’s reading of the Gorgias; his arg u m en t to the Parmenides offers variations in the dialogues in term s of chronological developm ent or pure
an Oven m ore striking case. W here m ost m odern com m entators see a genre requirem ents. T o do so w ould be to call into question the unity and
penetrating self-critique of the theory of ideas Plato had held in his m id­ w isdom of P lato ’s pedagogical m ethod, to suggest that he m ight have
dle p e rio d ,173 Ficino saw an elevated discussion of theological issues in changed his inspired m ind about the most effective form of teaching over
whi^h three wise m en com plem ent hierarchically each o th e r’s vision of the course of his life. H ence, in o rder to explain why Plato varied his ap ­
G o d ’s unity in sensible and intelligible being. proach, Ficino assum es Plato to be responding to the differences in m oral
Wherefore in this dialogue, Zeno of Elea, a disciple of the Pythagorean and religious form ation am ong S ocrates’ com panions (and, by extension,
iParmenides, proves first that the One exists in sensible things, showing that am ong later readers of the dialogues). W orst off were those, like
if they were many, if they could in no way participate the nature of the One, E uthyphro or the Sophists, who though im m ersed in the toils of opinion
many errors would follow. Then Socrates—not, to be sure, opposing Zeno, still thought them selves experts on everything, even G od. T hese were the
but raising him higher—leads the way to a consideration of the one and the indocibiles, those w hom Socrates could only refute in the hope of m aking
henads which exist in intelligible things, lest he should dwell on the One
in sensibilia. From this they go on to investigate the Ideas, in which the them hum ble enough to learn the truth. H ig h er on the ladder were the
henads of things exist. Finally Parmenides himself, as the elder [of the ig n o ran t but hum ble, typically the p u re-hearted young m en around
three)—not in the least contradicting Socrates, but completing his un­ Socrates. T hese were the docibiles\ them it was w orthw hile for Socrates to
finished contemplation—gives a full account and explication of the Ideas.174 exhort and persuade to virtue. Best of all w ere S ocrates’ and P lato ’s own
Ficino was, how ever, far from oblivious to the ap p aren t differences of disciples, to whom it was possible to reveal the inm ost secrets of his
fornti and purpose that sep arated , say, the elenchic dialogues of P lato ’s teaching, showing them how to tu rn w ithin and tow ards the divine light.
Socifatic period from the d octrinal dialogues of the m iddle period, or O n e m ay represent the situation schem atically as follow s:176*
those dialogues from the seem ingly m ore direct self-revelations of the
Laws and the Letters. But w hereas a m o d ern co m m entator will set down 175 See Comm, in Conv., ed. Marcel, p. 229, and Allen (1981b), p. 37, note 31 and p.
the differences to variation or developm ent in P lato ’s literary m anner, 41, note 51. He had ancient authority (Diogenes Laertius III.3 and Aulus Gellius X IX .2)
for the Phdr. and the L gg., and internal evidence in Letters II and VII suggests their own
Ficipo perceived them as expressions of a general characteristic of the dates, but the early dates for the Phd. and the Meno seem to have been Ficino’s own idea.
Ficino does attribute at least one feature to Plato’s literary development: in the Phdr. com­
mentary he suggests that the works written at the beginning and the end of Plato’s life,
173 A convincing interpretation of the dialogue with a summary of modern views may when he was nearest to the vale of soul-making, were especially poetical.
be fdund in K. M. Sayre, P lato’s Late Ontology: A Riddle Resolved (Princeton, 1983). 176 For this principle see especially O p . , p. 1303 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 89rb (Arg. in
174| Op., p. 1137 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 22rb (Arg. in Prm.): “ Quamobrem hoc in Euthd.y. “ Socrates tamen hie inter adolescentes atque sophistas mysteria haec reuelanda
dialo^o Zeno Eleates primo Parmenidis Pvthagorici discipulus unum esse in sensibilibus non censet. Mos enim Socraticus adolescentes exhortatur solum, sophistas solum confutat,
probht, ostendens quod si haec multa essent, nullo modo unius natura participantia, er- uiros denique legitimos docet. Hie ergo sub ironia atque dissimulatione eiusmodi tangit
rore^ plurimi sequerentur. Deinde Socrates, Zenoni non repugnans quidem, sed eum mysteria, seque simulat hesitare et quasi inter sophistas uertiginosos pati uertiginem.”
altiu$ elevans, ad considerationem unius et unitatum quae in rebus intelligibilibus insunt O p . , p. 1129 = Platonis opera 1491, sign, alvb (Praef. in Plat, op.): “ Nam Plato noster ante-
perdpcit, ne in hoc uno quod sensibilibus inest moretur. Ex hoc igitur ad Ideas in- quam diuina fundat oracula, ne sacra prophanis communia fiant, audientium animos
vesti^andas perveniunt in quibus rerum unitates consistunt. Postremo Parmenides ipse triplici paulatim ad summum calle perducit, purgatione, resolutione, conuersione.
senior haudquaquam Socrati contradicens, sed inchoatam contemplationem eius ab- Quamobrem multa leguntur apud Platonem ad purgandos perturbationibus animos per-
solvens, integram idearum explicat rationem.” This seems to be a condensed version of tinentia, plura rursum ad soluendas mentes a sensibus, plurima etiam ad conuertendas,
Proclus In Prm., ed. Cousin, pp. 620-624. The same argument is discussed in a different turn in seipsas, turn in Deum omnium auctorem, in quern ueluti solem rite conuersae, op-
context in Allen (1982) and Allen (1986), pp. 432-437, who gives an account of its rela­ tads inde ueritatis radiis feliciter illustrentur.’’ O p ., p. 1272 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 42va
tion jo Proclus’ interpretation of the same dialogue. Allen shows later in the same article (Arg. in Lys.): “ Ubi Socrates cum Sophistis eorumque sectatoribus disputat, opiniones
how Ficino read the negative hypotheses at the end of the Parmenides as a piece of negative falsas redarguit, ueras significat potius quam doceat. Nam acuta ingenia redargutis lalsis
theology. exiguo deinde uestigio uera uenantur. Quod in Euthvdemo, Prothagora, Menone, Hip-
 332 P A R T IV FLORENCE 333

INTERLOCUTORS ETHOS STAGE177 TEACHING

we should say) ‘elenchic’ dialogues, which are devoted entirely to refuting
false opinions of Sophists. T h ere are other dialogues, such as the
disciples , conversion Inner secrets
docibites Parmenides, in w hich only the initiated are present and whose function is
well-disposed ) | Moral suasion therefore purely purgative. A third class— probably Ficino here m eans
youths purification dialogues like the Phaedo or Republic— are “ m ixed” in form , having both
sophists and indocibiles ' Refutation dociles and indociles am o n g the interlocutors and therefore necessarily con­
other frauds taining passages both of pu rg atio n and co n v ersio n .180
Closely connected w ith D ecorum of A udience is a characteristic I shall
T h u s Ficino sets dow n the generic differences in the dialogues, not to call C om p lem en tarity of D octrine. T h e problem here for Ficino was
change and evolution in P la to ’s literary o r philosophical purposes, as a u n d erstan d in g why Plato spread his treatm en t of certain them es and doc­
m odern genre critic m ight, b u t ra th e r to functional specialization w ithin trines am ong a n u m b er of dialogues rath er than collecting them conven­
a unified program of philosophical education. T h e idea of pedagogic iently together u n d er the ap propriate heads, as A ristotle had done.
functionalism helps Ficino to u n d e rsta n d why, for instance, dialogues F icino’s solutions to this problem are not entirely satisfactory or consis­
such as the Euthyphro, Euthydernus and the Hippias Minor seem to come to tent, though he never doubted that Plato had very good reasons for w hat
no clear conclusions. T h e reason is that Plato, or Socrates, felt he should he had done. H is broadest solution was offered in the Parmenides com m en­
devote those dialogues sim ply to refuting false opinions, reserving for tary, w here he suggests that the m ixing of subjects and them es in the d ia­
oth er dialogues the tasks o f ethical purification and c o n v ersio n .178 Even logue was the result of P la to ’s having followed the P ythagorean model,
in a case w here Socrates explicitly confesses him self flum m oxed by the and that this was done partly for “ reasons of grace” (ratione gratiae) and
arg u m en t, as at the end of the Protagoras, Ficino is able to find a hyponoia, partly to im itate N atu re herself, in whose realm different “ m atters” were
nam ely, that Socrates is p reten d in g to be confused in o rd er to show the found artfully com bined to g e th e r.181 T h u s in the Phaedrus theology was
audience, and the reader, the consequences of following S o p h ists.179 “ conflated” w ith oratory; in the Timaeus m athem atical doctrine was sown
U ltim ately, the decorum principle leads Ficino to find in Plato a into doctrines of n atu ral science, and linked with dialectic, theology and
typology of dialogic genres. T h e re are dialogues, like the ‘litigious’ or (as even m oral doctrines; in the Parmenides itself, as in the Philebus and Sophist,
dialectic w ?j m ixed with th eo lo g y .182 Ficino even suggests, rath er slyly,
pia, Euthvphrone, et Lvside patet. Ubi uero cum discipulis et studiosis sui serraonem that A ristotle him self im itated P la to ’s Republic in this respect, and in his
habet, ostendit et docet, quod quidem ex multis dialogis intellegitur. ” O p ., p. 1270 = Plato­
nis opera, t. 38ra (Art.■>. in Hipp. ma.): "De pulchro in Phaedro, Svmposio, et Hippia
“ dialectical su m m a ” (the Posterior Analytics?) m ixed dialectical instruction
disputatur. In Hippia, quia Socrates agit aduersus Hippiam sophistam, qui cum ignoraret with m etap h y sics.183
so scire putabat, quae ignorantia animum reddit indocilem, quid pulchrum sit non satis
docet, sed quid non sit ostendit, et opiniones falsas redarguit. Op . , p. 1271 = Platoms opera
1491, t. 38rb-va (ibid.): "Qua ratione gratia haec insit et quo nomine nuncupanda inquirit 180 O p., p. 1532 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 328va (Arg. in Ep. IT): "Omnes itaque Platonis
Socrates, nec tamen ambitioso sophistae declarat quae Phaedro reuelauit et Agathoni, qui dialogi in hoc ipso uersantur, et alii quidem in purgando solum, alii uero solum in conuer-
quamuis ignorarent, suam tamen ignorantiam agnoscentes [agnoscens O p.\, dociles erant. tendo, alii in utroque consistunt,” etc. This whole passage is a central one for Ficino s
... Hoc Socrates mysterium, quod a Diotima Sibylla didicisse [se add. Op.\ asseruit, non theory of education.
sophistis, sed discipulis reuelauit.’’ See also Op . , pp. \2 9 1 (Arg. in Protag. ), 1300-1301 (Arg. 181 O p., p. 1137 = Commentana 1496, f. 2v (Proem, in Prm.): "Praeterea consuetudo fuit
in Euthd ). The idea that refutation is equivalent to purification may be taken from Proclus, Pythagoreorum Platonisque plures inuicem materias partim more naturae, partim ratione
Comm, in Parm ., ed. V. Cousin (Paris, 1864), p. 620. gratiae opportune miscere.” See the discussion in Allen (1986), p. 439. The attribution
17' In the Prooemium to Lorenzo de’Medici of the Platonis opera omnia (so presumably of a “ mixed” style of composition to the Pythagoreans is probably based on Iamblichus,
later) Ficino assigns a separate stage for the second group, giving three in all: purification, De vita Pythagorica 19.90, ed. L. Deubner (1975), p. 52f. Ficino’s parallelism of “ grace”
resolution” , and conversion; see the passage cited in the previous note. In several parallel and “ nature” here may be meant to suggest the divine origin of artistic “ gracefulness
passages he mentions only two stages. The attitude to the dialogues recalls Bessarion’s, for which see above, p. 256f.
1,8 See Op., p. 1135 (Arg. in E u th ). The Decorum principle has recently been revived 182 The principle of complementarity thus enabled Ficino to reconcile the two leading

in the modern scholarly literature (independently, needless to say, of Ficino) by M. C. interpretations of the Parmenides in antiquity, the “ dialectical” and the “ theological , for
StokOs, Plato ’s Socratic Conversations (London, 1987). which see Saffrey-Westerink in the introduction to their Theologieplatonicienne, pp. lxxv-xc.
''l' Op., p. 1300 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 80rb (Arg. in Protag.): "Simulat quinetiam Ficino explicitly states at O p . , p. 1154 that he is following a “ middle course” between what
Socrates se quoque in repugnantiam esse deductum, ex eo duntaxat, quod sophistam quidam ante Proclum thought and what Proclus, following Syrianus, thought; see also below,
secutus fuerit aberrantem, admonetque ut Promethei prouidentiam potius quam Epime- p. 346.
thei properantiam in omm uita pro uiribus imitemur.” 183 O p., pp. 1137-1138: “ Aristoteles quinetiam dialecticam summam—malo emm
 334 P A R T IV FLORENCE 335

Like the poetic artist he was, then, P lato im itated n atu re by m ixing of exhortation or purification like the Laches and Charmides, where doc­
diverse matenae in the sam e place. But again, like the dem iurgic artist of trines are sketched out, b ut not “ finished” .190 At the highest end of the
the universe, he ordered his m a tte r in accordance w ith graceful reaso n .184 scale, in dialogues m eant especially for purgati and initiates, the full depth
H enpe the sym phonic a rra n g e m en t of them es playing through the of P lato ’s h u m an and divine wisdom can be revealed. In F icino’s
dialogues was ordered and unified by h ig h er philosophical and educa­ Parmenides com m entary, the dialogues which collect P la to ’s learning most
tional purposes. Ficino never w orks out the them atic structure of the fully are identified as the Republic for m oral teachings, the Timaeus for
dialogues in a holistic way, but he does pass occasional rem arks which knowledge of n atu re, and the Parmenides for “ all of theology” . 191
reveal his conception of som e of th eir them atic interrelationships. Som e­ F icino’s belief in the sym phonic structure and com plem entarity of the
tim es them es in several dialogues are related to each o ther as genus to Platonic corpus as a whole, how ever, entailed rejecting an exegetical
species: thus Ficino says th at the Phaedrus deals with the genus of divine principle dear to the hearts of the later N eoplatonists, nam ely, the princi­
m adness, while the Symposium and the Ion explore, respectively, the ple of the skopos.192* A ccording to N eoplatonic com m entators from
am ato ry and poetic species th e re o f.185*T h e Symposium and the Phaedrus are Iam blichus to Proclus, Plato intended each of his dialogues to have one
also com plem entary pairs in that the form er treats B eauty for the sake and only one them e to which all parts of the dialogue m ust at some level
of Love, the latter Love for the sake o f B e a u ty .185 Elsew here, differences be subordinated. T his them e also functioned as the telos of the dialogue,
in arg u m en tatio n betw een two dialogues are explained philosophically: the one philosophical end or pedagogic purpose w hich explained why
thus the Phaedo excludes from its arg u m en ts for im m ortality the proof Plato had w ritten the dialogue. H ence the N eoplatonist H erm eias, for in ­
from self-m otion, since it deals especially w ith the h u m an soul, whereas stance, in com m enting on the Phaedrus, identified its skopos as the doctrine
the self-m otion proof in the Phaedrus applies to all so u l.187 But Ficino of B eauty, and linked the apparently unrelated passages on dialectic with
believes, following Proclus, th at all the dialogues contain som ew here and this them e by show ing that they in reality were designed to teach about
in som e degree P la to ’s highest d o c trin e s.188 At the lowest level, in “ beauty of speech” . Ficino, however, though he often follows the prac­
' ‘litigious” dialogues like the Euthydemus, theological tru th s m ay be only tice of T hrasyllus in giving a them atic subtitle to a dialogue, now here a t­
intinfiated, h idden in “ sig n s” o r “ seed s” . 189 In the m iddle are dialogues tem pts to relate to each o ther different them es w ithin a dialogue in this
way, as parts to a whole, effects to a cause, or m eans to an end. A lthough
dialecticam dicere quam dialecticen—miscuit cum diuinis, Platonem ut arbitror imi- his other ? ..sumptions naturally required him to m ake a teleological
tatus, theologiam in Repubhca sub dialectico nomine designantem. ” There is perhaps analysis of literary detail, he was not com pelled thus to find one end or
here an implicit recognition of the incompatibility of Aristotle’s instrumental view of logic
with Plato’s natural logic, although elsewhere (e.g. Op., p. 1302; Allen [1981b], p. 202) pedagogic function for each dialogue to which all the parts it contained
Ficino tries to reconcile the two. som ehow contributed.
184 For the Neoplatonic concept of the artist as demiurge or subcreator, see Coulter, T his brings us to the fourth characteristic of the Platonic corpus, which
chapter 4; Ficino’s treatment of the theme is discussed fully in Allen (1989).
185 O p., p. 1282 (Arg. in Ion)\ Comm, in Conv., ed. Marcel, p. 260. I shall label V ariety of Sem antic D epth. By rejecting the skopos-theory,
I8b Comm, in Phdr., ed. Allen (1981b), p. 73: “ Symposium de amore quidem precipue
tractdt, consequenter vero de pulchritudine. At Phedrus gratia pulchritudinis disputat de 190 Op., p. 1308 = Platonis opera, f. 102ra {Arg. in Lack.): “ Definitiones uero quas uel
amore. ’’ hie de fortitudine, uel in Charmide de temperantia quaerit, non hie aut ibi, ubi exhortan
187 O p ., p. 1390 {Arg. in Phd.); for an extended analysis, see Allen (1984b), chapter 3. et admonere duntaxat consilium est, sed in Republica et Legibus absoluuntur. ’
188 See Proclus, Thcol. Plat. 1.4, 1.6, ed. Saffrey-Westerink, pp. 23, 29; Allen (1982), 191 Op., p. 1136 « Platonis opera 1491, i. 22rb {Arg. in Prm.): “ Cum Plato per omnes
pp. 241'., 4 If.; Allen (1986), p. 432f. eius dialogos totius sapientiae semina sparserit, in libris De republica cuncta moralis
189 Op., p. 1525 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 319va (Arg. in Lgg. X lf): “ Plato proculdubio philosophiae instituta collegit, omnem naturalium rerum scientiam in Timaeo, universam
paenfi in omnibus eius scriptis aut demonstrat aut innuit omnium esse principia.’’ O p., in Parmemde complexus est theologiam.’’ This view ol the Republic is, however, undercut
p. 1297 = Platoms opera 1491, t. 79va {Arg. in Protag.): “ De hac eius arte Plato et saepe by what Ficino says later about Degrees of Truth in Plato’s political teaching; see below,
alibi ft in Symposio ac Phaedro praecipue pertractauit. Eandem in principio huius libri p. 339.
significant.” Significare means here as frequently elsewhere in the Commentana “ to give 192 For the Neoplatonic theory of the skopos see Coulter, Literary Microcosm, chapter 3,
a sign for’’. Cp. the argument of the Theaetetus, where Ficino finds an obscure reference and B. Dalsgaard Larsen, Jamblique de Chalets: Exegete et Philosophe (Aarhus, 1972). See the
to the doctrine of the divided line at the beginning of the dialogue {O p . , p. 1281 = Platoms Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, 21.18-28, ed. Westerink (Amsterdam, 1962),
opera 1491, 1. 48va): “ Quod et in hoc dialogo significauit in principio, cum scientiam et pp. xxxvii- xxxviii for the most explicit statement of this doctrine and the Neoplatonic
sapientiam idem esse proponeret. In the argument to the Lysis, Ficino gives us a kanones of interpretation. Ficino mentions the theory on a number of occasions, and some­
justification tor why Plato sprinkled seeds of wisdom even when refuting Sophists times appears to find it attractive, but he did not himself employ the theory in his actual
(passage quoted in note 176, above). exegesis; see Allen (1981b), pp. 10, 72 and Allen (1986), p. 439; Allen (1989), chapter 1.
 336 P A R T IV FLORENCE 337

Ficino rejected the N eoplatonic vision of the dialogues as severally con­ Finally, in finding in the Platonic corpus different degrees of sem antic
stituting in stantiations or epiphanies of single ideas or skopoi. Ficino dep th , Ficino alm ost certainly had an o th er text in m ind whose textuality
ratljer saw a given dialogue as one section in the larger m osaic of Platonic was of a sim ilar n ature: nam ely, the Bible. For as A ugustine, G regory,
teaching. T h is m eant, first, that in dividual passages of the dialogue and Je ro m e had all agreed, the Bible could not and should not be read
foupd their full m eaning as tesserae in that la rg e r m osaic, instead of w ithin as a continuous allegory, b ut each of its “ senses” was m ore appropriate
one dialogue, one section of the m osaic. It m eant, secondly, that he could in some places than in others. Even in later m edieval literary theory it
dispense in m any passages with the im plausible m ultiplication of levels was accepted that allegoresis had its lim its and that in some places the
of m eaning the skopos theory forced on N eoplatonic exegetes. Ficino thus m oral sense alone was p a ra m o u n t.195 T he Bible too contained a m ixture
saw the textuality of the dialogues as less rich sem antically, b u t as having of genres, including history, poetry, prophecy, law, and spiritual letters.
a mjore intricate and artistic surface. J u s t as Plato had im itated N ature So in g ran tin g to the Platonic corpus a Biblical kind of textuality, Ficino
in the varied disposition of his subject m a tte r, so also, Ficino thought, m ay have been dim inishing P lato ’s inspiration from the point of view of
his style im itated the varied usefulness, o r d e r ,. and attractiveness of later N eoplatonism , b u t from his own C hristian point of view he was pay­
N atu re. ing him the greatest com plim ent of all.
T h e effects of this view of the dialogues’ textuality on F icino’s in ter­
Surely [Ficino addresses Lorenzo de’Medici in his Preface], just as the
world is provided with three special gifts, utility, order and ornament, p retatio n can be observed throughout the Commentana. W hereas the
which bear witness to us of their divine artisan, so the Platonic style, which N eoplatonic com m entators saw a bottom less depth of signification in
contains the universe, abounds with three special gifts: the philosophical every syllable, Ficino saw a textual surface w ith varying grades of sem an­
utility of its utterances, the oratorical order of its disposition and delivery, tic richness. D ialogues such as the Menexenus, Apology, and Crito, he felt,
and the ornament ol its poetical flowers. And this style everywhere makes could be taken m ore or less at face value, as inspiring bits of eloquence
use of divine witnesses and also offers most certain testimony concerning
God, the architect of the world.193 from w hich one could extract exempla and sententiae in the hum anist
fash io n .196*Elsewhere Plato m ixed into his discourse jokes and play, gems
T h e later N eoplatonists w ould no d o u b t have felt such an em phasis on of wit and beauty, fables and poetic flowers. A lthough these often had a
the literary variety and o rn a m e n t of the Platonic corpus to be superficial deeper m ean in g hidden w ithin them , their basic purpose was to use the
“ rh eto rical” criticism , as a ttrib u tin g to P lato a sham eful interest in m ere joys of literatu re as a “ b a it” to lure pleasure-loving youths w ithin the
noixfdta. But for Ficino, as for B essarion, it was in p art P la to ’s poetic and tem ple of Platonic wisdom.
oratorical gifts which set him off from the A ristotelian pedagogues and
O ur Plato, in the midst of treating, often in a hidden manner, the necessary
com pilers o f the duller sort. As Ficino goes on to say after the passage duty of the human race, from time to time seems to joke and play. But
ju st quoted, Platonic jokes and games are much more serious than the serious discourse
So lare well then, magnanimous Lorenzo, fare well and far off to all those
who demand from Plato highly detailed plans of elementary instruction. Let and Aristotle quoted at length in Part One (p. 65), especially the passage: “ Haec autem
other more elementary minds give elementary instruction; then let those so continuatio diligentiaque doctrinae in Platone non fuit, siue ille non putauerit oportere,
instructed approach the gates of Platonism, thence in due time to carry siue noluerit, siue ista parua minutaque et quasi disciplinarum elementa contempserit.
back, not childish rudiments, but divine mysteries.194 Itaque illius Iibri perfectis iam robustisque disciplina hominibus aptiores sunt, teneros
uero instituere non satis possunt.”
195 On the interpretation of the Bible m the patristic and high medieval periods see B.
Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1952); on the later Middle Ages
193 Op . , p. 1129 - Platoms opera 1491, sign, alva-vb: “ Profecto quemadmodum mun- see A. J. Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic literary attitudes in the later Middle
dus tribus praecipue dotibus est munitus, utilitate, ordine, ornamento, atque ex his Ages (London, 1984), esp. pp. 33-38.
diutnum nobis testatur artificem, ita Platonicus stylus continens uniuersum tribus 196 O p., p. 1390 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 171ra (Arg. in Cn.): “ Quemadmodum
potissimum abundat muneribus: philosophica sententiarum utilitate, oratorio disposi­ Apologiae, ita Critonis quoque tarn ordinata, tarn plana dispositio est, ut argumento non
tion's elocutionisque ordine, llorum ornamento poeticorum, et ubique turn diuinis utitur egeat. ... Ex omnibus autem collige Euangelicae doctrinae confirmationem, approba-
testibus, turn etiam certissimum de architecto mundi Deo perhibet testimonium. ” tionem martyrum, exemplar iustitiae, incomparabilem lortitudinem, contemptum mor-
194 Ibid.: “ Valeant igitur, magnanime Laurenti, ualeant procul omnes, qui minutissi- talium, desiderium aeternorum.’’ Ficino goes on to ask a series of rhetorical questions,
rnas erudiendae pueritiae a Platone rationes efflagitant. Erudiant alii rudiores, et eruditi as though the text were too obvious to demand exposition: “ Why should I point out that
denique lores Platonicas adeant, inde non tarn puerilia rudimenta, quam divina mysteria vulgar opinion is to be despised, that only the opinion o t the wise man, indeed o f the truth
tandem reportaturi.” Ficino may intend this as a retort to Bruni’s comparalio of Plato itself, is to be cultivated,” etc.
338 P A R T IV FLORENCE 339

of the Stoics. For he does not disdain to wander anywhere through more we shall see in due course, but his rejection-of the skopos as well as his
humble [forms of expression] so long as he can insensibly captivate his o ther assum ptions about the natu re of the Platonic corpus prevented him
humbler listeners and lead them more easily to the sublime. Often_for
from the wholesale and continuous allegorizings of the N eoplatonic com ­
Very serious reasons—he will mix the useful and the sweet, so that by his
jgentle wit and seductive talk he may use the bait of pleasure to entice minds m e n ta to rs.201
haturally prone to pleasure to take solid food. Often too he fashions tales T h e last broad characteristic Ficino attributes to the w ritings of Plato
In the prophetic manner, as is natural since Plato’s very style seems not so I sum up u n d er the rubric D egrees of T ru th . Ficino seems to have seen
fnuch philosophical as truly prophetic.197 P la to ’s attitu d e tow ards the doctrines m entioned in his dialogues as
T h e N eoplatonists, w ith th eir relentless high-m indedness, would have resem bling F icino’s own attitu d e in collecting m aterials for his com m en­
thought such attentio n to literary pleasure to be ill in keeping w ith P lato ’s taries. T h a t is to say, he saw Plato as a judicious com piler of constructive
seribus philosophical p u rp o se s.198 Ficino, how ever, mocks the N eoplato- teachings from various sources, all of which he thought to be at least
nistsi’ and especially P ro clu s’ tendency to find “ a m ystery for every w ord, probable, but only some of which he held as com pletely true. O n the
a divinity for every p h ra se ” .199 H e him self prefers the m ore flexible whole, says Ficino (following Diogenes L aertius I I I .8), he took his doc­
m ethod of St. A ugustine, w hich did not attem p t to read allegories into trines about sensibilia from his teacher H eraclitus, about intelligibilia from
every sentence; a media via read in g the dialogues as som ething betw een P ythagoras, and his political and m oral doctrines from S ocrates.202 But
literary en tertain m en ts and sacred tex ts.200 T h a t there w ere passages in he did not regard all such doctrines presented in his dialogues as possess­
Plato req u irin g allegorical in te rp re ta tio n Ficino by no m eans denies, as ing equal ‘‘verisim ilitude” .
What Plato says himself in his Letters and in the Laws and Epinomis he would
have be taken as completely true, while the things discussed in his other
197;O p . , p. 1129 = Platonis opera 1491, sign, alv (Praef. in Platonis opera): “ Interea Plato books which he puts into the mouth of Socrates, Timaeus, Parmenides, and
noster, dum occultis saepe modis humano generi necessarium tractat officium, interdum
iocart uidetur et ludere. Verum Platonici ludi atque ioci multo grauiores sunt quam seria Zeno he wishes to be taken as probable.203
Stoicprum. Neque enim per humiliora quaedam dedignatur alicubi peruagari, modo sen-
sim auditores captans humiliores facilius ad excelsa perducat. Miscet frequenter
Does this astou nding statem en t— repeated a n u m b er of times and ap ­
grauissimo quodam consilio utilia dulcibus, quo modestis sermonis blandi leporibus, parently F icino ’s own idea204— does this statem ent m ean that all but
animos natura proniores ad uoluptatem, per ipsam uoluptatis escam ad cibum alliciat
salutarem [om. O p.}. Fingit et saepe fabulas more prophetico [poetico 0 p .\, quippe cum
ipse Platonis stilus non tarn philosophicus quam reuera propheticus [poeticus O p.}
uidealtur. ” The context here seems to demand poeticus, but the clear parallel with Quin­ 201 Thus in the Parmentdes commentary, the mixing of dialectic and theology in accord­
tilian X. 1.81 (“ Multa enim supra prosam orationem et quam pedestrem Graeci uocant ance with the Complementarity principle meant that a theological meaning could not be
[Plate?] surgit, ut mihi non hominis ingenio sed quodam Delphico uideatur oraculo in- discovered everywhere; see O p ., p. 1154: “ Ego uero mediam secutus uiam; arbitror tan-
stinctus” ) suggests that Ficino thought the style of Greek “ prophets’’ was specially tum saltern theologiae subesse quantum admittit artificium, ut communiter dicitur,
poetical. The reading of the 1484 edition (sign. [a*2]ra) is propheticus. dialecticum, ideoque non ubique omnino continuatas, sed quandoque diuulsas de diuinis
198 See for example, Proclus In Ale. I 18.13— 19.10, ed. Westerink (Amsterdam, inesse sententias.” Earlier in the same paragraph, Ficino appeals to Plato’s attention to
1954): “ The prologues of Plato’s dialogues are in harmony with their overall purposes the decorum of persons to argue against continuous allegory {O p., pp. 1153-1154)1
[skopoi}. Plato did not create these prologues for dramatic entertainment, for such a mode “ Nonne Plato decorum personarum ubique seruat? ... Si contra decreuisset diuina pro-
of cofnposition is far from the elevation proper to the Philosopher” (tr. Westerink). rsus omnia hie ubique continuare mysteria, neque logicam interim difficultatem in-
199 Comm, in Plat. (1496), f. I3v, quoted by Allen (1986), p. 443n. ( = O p., p. 1154): troduxisset, per se haud admodum uenerandam dignamque numinibus, neque
“ [Prbclus] in singulis uerbis singula putat latere mysteria, et quot sunt clausulae ferme adolescentem [Socratem] hie elegisset erudiendum.”
totidCm sunt numina. ” 202 Vita Platonis {O p., p. 769).
700 See Allen (1984b), p. 23, basing himself on passages from the Phdr. and S m p., and 203 Ibid., p. 766: “ Quae in epistolis vel in libris De legibus et Epinomide Plato ipse
especially the sensitive and learned discussion in Allen (1986), pp. 442-444 of Ficino’s suo dixit ore certissima vult haberi, quae vero in caeteris libris Socratis, Timaei,
criticism of Proclus’ reading of the Parmenides. The passages of St. Augustine Ficino refers Parmenidis, Zenonis ore disputat, verisimilia.”
to ar^ identified as De vera religione 1.50-51 and De tnn. 15.9, to which should perhaps be 204 Cp. for instance O p., pp. 766, 1273, 1391, 1392, 1488, 1536, and Platonic Theology
added! also the De doctrina Christiana, passim, esp. 6.7. But another passage from the argu­ 17.4, ed. Marcel, 3:168-169, 174. This last place shows that Ficino’s probable source for
ment to the Critias {O p., p. 1485 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 263rb) shows that Ficino felt he the idea was Epp. II (314C) and VII (341C). Ficino’s statement is different and much
was following Plato’s own view of the correct application of allegorical criticism: “ Por- more radical than the closest intermediate source for the notion, Diogenes Laertius III.52
phvrius tamen, et [om. Op.} Proculus, et ante hos Origenes allegoriam insuper uolunt (tr. Hicks): “ Now where he has a firm grasp Plato expounds his own view and refutes
physitam continere. Quos equidem uereor [om. O p.}, ne si conentur singula allegoriae the false one, but, if the subject is obscure, he suspends judgement. His own views are
ad unguem accommodare, ab ipso Platone derideantur, in exordio Phaedri curiosas expounded by four persons, Socrates, Timaeus, the Athenian Stranger [the chief speaker
nimium in huiusmodi rebus ailegorias sub persona Socratis irridente.” of the Laws} and the Eleatic Stranger [in the Sophist and Statesman}. ... To illustrate the
 340 P A R T IV FLORENCE 341

three) works of P lato can be dism issed as not truly P latonic, as m ere com ­ sense, to be reconciled legalistically with his own philosophical position.
pilations o f p robable doctrine? N o, Ficino explains in a sim ilar passage, Even w ith Plotinus, w hom he praises as the summus interpres of Plato,
cine must not think [because of the variety of Plato’s sources] that Plato Ficino will som etim es disagree, and the sam e is even m ore true of his a t­
diverged from Pvthagoras and Socrates, whom he revered as divinities. titude to Proclus and the other N eoplatonists.208 But it is not simply on
Rather he was like a mixture of both their intellects and acted almost as a single points of exegesis that Ficino uses his sources to construct an in­
Hind of regulator, if I may so express myself, of the human and the divine, dependent view. F icino’s vision of the corpus as a w hole— of its unity in
sb that in a certain way it could be said that they were merely divine, Aristo­
diversity, of its purposeful m ingling of wisdom w ith b e a u ty — this vision
tle and the other philosophers after Plato merely human, but Plato was
equally human and divine.205 was uniquely his ow n, as related yet distinct from its sources as (to bor­
row an im age from M . J . B. Allen) B runelleschi’s dom e to the P antheon.
It mfist be rem em b ered that for a N eoplatonist tru th is not a property W here the N eoplatonists had seen the literary dress of the dialogue as a
belonging to correctly form ed propositions, as it m ight be for a logical cipher to be decoded by a theological key know n ap rio ri, Ficino saw
pdsifivist; it is an experience, a light w hich can shine with g reater or theology as only one elem ent, if the suprem e elem ent, in a body of texts
lesser pow er of illum ination d ep en d in g on the condition of the soul that artfully woven of oratory, dialectic, h um or, irony, poetry, m ystery,
receiyes it.206 M etaphysical tru th s can never be fully stated in language; fable, and m yth. W here the hum anists saw isolated literary artifacts stud­
the problem for the P latonic philosopher is rath er to find that verbal for­ ded w ith sententiae aureae, Ficino saw a unified program of philosophical
m ulation o f the tru th which does the least violence to the reality ap ­ education in w hich literary pleasure was functionally related to the stores
prehended in noetic experience. So Socrates, Zeno, and the rest can of w isdom hidden beneath the surface of the text. But though Ficino
ap p e a r to diverge verbally from P la to ’s preferred form ulations of some valued P la to ’s pow ers as an artist, he did not reduce him to a m ere
tru th w ithout d iverging in fu n d am en tal inspiration. T h e value of the literary aesthete. For Ficino, Plato was above all an artist of the life of
“ S ocratic” an d “ P y th a g o re a n ” d o ctrine o f the dialogues rem ains great w isdom , using his literary art to refresh the wells of social order and
and in accord w ith Platonic theology, even if the form ulations of those elevate m en to the vision of G od.
doctrines do not have P la to ’s unreserved approval.
In su m m ary , th en , we m ay say th at F icin o ’s view of the Platonic cor­
pus y/as both com prehensive and sophisticated, com b in in g as it did 4. The C o m m en taria in Platonem : Exegesis as Apologetic
literary sensitivity w ith philosophical u n d erstan d in g . It was also, on the F or all th eir originality, Ficino himself, it m ust be em phasized, would not
whole, a rem ark ably in d ep en d en t view. T h is is not to depreciate F icino’s have regarded his views on Socrates, Plato, and the general characteris­
very real debt to Plotinus an d the N eoplatonic co m m en tato rs— a debt tics of the P latonic corpus to be the fruits of in terp retatio n , in the contem ­
Ficino him self often acknow ledges, if not q uite with the degree of assidui­ p orary sense of the w ord, but rath er as sim ply the u n m ed iated results of
ty dem an d ed by m o d ern scholarship.207 Ficino respects his N eoplatonic study and illum ination. P rem odern exegetes of literary and philosophical
predecessors as wise m en who have shared with him in a religious ex­ texts did not regard the critical reconstruction of the past as any p art of
perience, b u t he never treats them as au thorities in the full scholastic their duties; still less had they any developed consciousness of correct or
incorrect historical m ethod. T h e critical treatm en t of texts as fontes rath er
refutation of false opinions, he introduces Thrasymachus, Callicles, Polus, Gorgias, Pro­ th an auctoritates, though it had its roots in fifteenth-century hum anism ,
tagoras, or again Hippias, Euthydemus and the like.” See also Allen (1984a), p. 567.
205 ,O p. , p. 1488 (Arg. in Lgg. /), quoted and discussed below, note 235. did not fully em erge as a conscious m ethod until the sixteenth and seven­
306 For a passage where Ficino equates truth and (metaphysical) light, see Allen teenth centuries. Ficino for his p art was w orking w ith a m ixture of ex-
(1981b), p. 152. egetical techniques inherited from an tiquity and the M iddle Ages, whose
207 An analysis of Ficino’s debt to and independence of his Neoplatonic sources, partic­
ularly Proclus, may be found in Allen (1980), Allen (1981b), pp. 34n.-36n. and Allen purpose, as he saw it, was not to establish historical facts b ut to allow the
(1984b), chapter 10 (for the Phaedrus commentary), in Allen (1986), esp. pp. 433, 442, m oral and religious influence of Plato to operate fruitfully u p o n the m en
448 (flor the Parmenides commentary), and Allen (1987), passim (for the Timaeus commen­ of his own age. In this section we shall look briefly at the conscious tech-
tary ^nd related passages). For Ficino’s ultimate rejection of the Neoplatonists after
Plotinus see Allen (1984a), pp. 555-563, 580-584. For a similar complexity and
sophistication in Ficino’s interpretation of pagan myth, see the admirable treatment in 208 Plotinus praised as summus interpres, Op . , p. 1278; disagreements with Plotinus, Op . ,
Allen (1984b), chapter 5. pp. 1433, 1514; Allen (1975), p. 196; Allen (1984b), p. 232f.
 342 P A R T IV FLORENCE 343

niques Ficino em ploys in his co m m en taries on Plato and how they were and there are passages of allegorical exposition. O ften Ficino will stop
shapied by his historical position. and collect together the various m axim s and sententiae he has found in a
Form ally, F icin o ’s exegetical w ritings fall into two broad genres, the passage, presum ably to help the reader in com piling his copybook. An
argu m en t and com m entary on the one h an d , and w hat Ficino called im itation of Plato is also suggested by F icino’s use of the C om p lem en tari­
distirictiones et summae capitum on the o th e r.209 T h e Ficinian com m entary ty principle in his own com m entaries. A given Platonic doctrine will be
(w hith Ficino seems to reg ard as sim ply a q u an titativ e extension of an discussed in a n u m b er of different, som etim es unexpected places, each
arg u m en t210) is probably m odelled on the com m entaries of M acrobius, passage p u ttin g the doctrine in a new context or ad d in g new details. T he
Proclus and o th er P latonists, an d contains free expositions of difficult suggestion of an organic plan behind the com m entaries (taken together
points in roughly the o rd er they a p p e a r in the tex t.211 In the early Philebus w ith the Platonic Theology) is conveyed by a n u m b e r of the cross-
com m entary an d the original a rg u m e n ts these expositions are som etim es references.
connected to each oth er by a tissue of n arrativ e sum m ary; in the later
* * *
com m entaries the su m m ary functions are discharged by separate in ­
troductory arg u m en ts or by the distirictiones et summae capitum. T h e distinc­ For the techniques, as opposed to the form , of his com m entaries, Ficino
tions et summae capitum them selves are a hyb rid genre com pounded of the o rdinarily resorted to the exegetical traditions of N eoplatonism as well as
scholastic divisio textus and the lem m atic com m entary. T h e distinctiones to the m ethods of hum anist doctrinal and im itative reading; the influence
p rop er divide the text into p arts, doin g for the R enaissance read er w hat of scholastic and critical techniques of reading w ere, as a rule, far less
tables of contents and indices do for the m o d ern one. T h e summae contain m arked, at least in the Commentaria in Platonem.
m ore or less the sam e range of m aterials included in the arg u m en ts, but W e have already noted the irony that the doctrinal and im itative styles
are keyed to specific passages th ro u g h the use of incipits. of reading, whose G reek prototypes Plato had subjected to such violent
It m ay well have been F icin o ’s in ten tio n in his com m entaries to im itate censures in the Republic, should be em ployed, quite unconsciously, by
w hat he took to be the p ro tean c h aracter o f the dialogues them selves, for P la to ’s leading apologists in the early R enaissance, and used, m oreover,
the m atter of his exegesis displays considerable variety. T h e argum ents to com m ent on his own works. Ficino, too, in m any p arts of his com m en­
typically begin with an apologetic passage, explaining why some ap ­ taries uses techniques w hich are directly borrow ed from his hum anist
pearance of im m orality o r heresy in P lato is only appearance, not reality. teachers and contem poraries. T h e influence of trad itio n al histona is seen
O n other occasions he will begin w ith a broad exposition of (N eo-) everyw here, for Ficino devotes great effort to explaining images,
Platonic doctrine on som e issue to p re p a re the read er to grasp im ­ enigm as, historical and m ythological references— all the “ back g ro u n d ”
m ediately the hidden m ean in g of w hat Plato is saying. T h ere are know ledge necessary to u n d erstan d the text. As for im itative reading, the
passages of n arrativ e su m m ary , frequently incom plete; there are fact that his Plato was only a L atin translation precluded paying close a t­
passages w hich explicate the u n d erly in g logic of P la to ’s arg u m en tatio n ; tention to stylistic analysis, w hich, naturally, could have little scope
w here the ipsissima verba were not P lato ’s o w n .212 But o th er kinds of im ­
itative reading, kinds less closely tied to the textual surface than stylistic
209 I exclude here the Commentanum in Convivium Platonis, De amore which is not so much
a comatentary as a compilation of ideas on love from Plato and other sources, cast in the analysis, are very m uch in evidence. If analysis of schem es, Figures of
form cif a dialogue, or rather a serial monologue. Though an imitation of Plato (and of speech, was inap p ro p riate, Ficino does pay atten tio n to figures of
the traditional trattati d ’amore), its relation to the text of the Symposium is rather distant. th ought, or tropes, especially “ poetical” ones such as personification,
210 $ee O p . , p. 1521: “ Post haec autem, ut solemus, obscuriora quaedam arbitramur
brevit^r exponenda.’’ That arguments are simply miniature commentaries is implied a
number of times, e.g. O p. , pp. 1133, 1303, 1389, 1438, etc. The title epitome for argumen- 2,2 Ficino himself admits the shortcomings of his translation; see above, p. 316. He
tum wljuch appears in the 1576 edition of the Opera omnia has no authority either in the and his circle did of course imitate what they took to be a chief feature of the Platonic
manuscripts or in the printed editions of 1484 and 1491; those sources and the 1496 edi­ style, namely, the tendency to encapsulate deeper meanings in jokes, riddles, and gnomic
tion of the Commentana also give the title Compendium in Timaeum to the text which appears utterances; for this, see Wind, Pagan Mysteries, passim, esp. the introduction and Chapter
as In 'fimaeum commentarium in the 1576 edition; see Allen (1981b), pp. 18-21. 3; for its function in Ficino’s apologetic, see below, p. 356. The Renaissance love of
211 The early Philebus commentary, though having like the other commentaries the “ significant” punning and double entendre owes much to this Platonic word-play. Ficino
general form of a free commentary, has also a few genuine lemmata. The ostensible sum­ himself sometimes imitates Plato’s style in such features as his interlocking word
maries occasionally turn into virtual chapters of commentary; see Allen (1981b), pp- order” , imitation of speech patterns (which Ficino seems to have read as a liking on
24-25. Plato’s part for the formal scheme redintegratio), and his use of prolepsis and hyperbaton.
344 P A R T IV FLORENCE 345

m etonym y, anagogy, fable, ironia, m etap h o r, and p a ra d o x .213 A nd he contradiction in the few instances where he was forced to adm it that the
frequently urges the m oral im itatio n o f Socrates, especially in the vague language of the dialogues had led in terpreters into theological
argum ents to the Apology, Crito an d Phaedo; in the arg u m en t to the last he e rro r.217
suggests that to im itate Socrates was the next best thing to im itating O n the other h and Ficino resem bled the N eoplatonic allegorists in at
C h ris t.214 Elsewhere Ficino declares th at Socrates him self used the least three respects. First, like them he uses the doctrines of a Platonic
P ythagoreans in the Gorgias and E r in Book X of the Republic as exempla theology, draw n especially from Plotinus and Proclus, as his key to
of good and pious b e h a v io r.215 R egularly in the course of the com m en­ u n d erstan d in g the hidden m eaning of allegorical passages. Secondly,
taries, as has already been observed, Ficino will pause to collect valuable although he thought of P lato ’s allegory partly as a poetical o rn am ent, in
precepts and sententiae,216 often in stru ctin g his reader, addressed in the the m a n n e r of the ethical critics, he also, like the allegorists, believed that
second person or the im perative, to com m it these gems to m em ory. Plato had em ployed allegory as a device for hiding esoteric doctrines
T here is, Finally, th ro u g h o u t the com m entaries a general tone of in spira­ from the vulgar, and this belief affected his choice of passages for
tion and uplift which owes m uch to the spirit of the h u m anist com m en­ allegorical treatm en t. Finally, Ficino resem bled the N eoplatonists when
tary and hum anist m oral literatu re. he used allegoresis to escape from other Platonic doctrines which seemed
F icino’s chief debt to N eoplatonic com m entators, in term s of ex- clearly heretical. Allegory was, for instance, one of several techniques us­
egetical technique, is his occasional appeal to assum ptions underlying ed to explain away P lato ’s references to the tran sm ig ratio n of hum an
N eoplatonic Allegorese. T h e m a tte r is com plicated since F icin o ’s use of souls into the bodies of beasts, found in the Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic X,
allegory is indebted both to the piecem eal “ fig u re” allegory of traditional Timaeus, and other dialogues.218 Ficino takes it in several places in the
doctrinal read in g as well as to the m ore holistic N eoplatonic allegoresis. Commentana as a m oral allegory about the consequences of behaving like
Like other m edieval and early R enaissance doctrinal critics, and in ac­ a b e a st.219
cordance w ith his belief th at the Platonic corpus exhibited varying H istorical criticism played alm ost no role in F icino’s Platonic com ­
degrees of sem antic richness, Ficino did not try to allegorize entire m entaries, usually surfacing only in specifically apologetic contexts.220 It
dialogues dow n to their sm allest details. T o do so w ould have un d ercu t m ay be thought that F icino’s historical reconstruction ol the Ancient
the effect of the ethical criticism he h ad used elsewhere in his com m en­ T heology owes som ething to the sharpening clim ate of hum anist
taries. For im itation d epended on m a in ta in in g the integrity of the textual criticism , b u t this, I believe, would be a m istake. T h e A ncient Theology
surface, at least in cases o f exempla and sententiae. N or did Ficino follow was certainly a m agnificent piece of historical im agination, b ut it did not
the allegorists in reg ard in g the P latonic dialogues as sacred texts in the issue from the application of any conscious critical m ethod. Ficino
full sense. In spired they certainly w ere, but that inspiration did not now here weighs evidence or considers rival theories, and his
guarantee that the positive doctrin e of the dialogues had everyw here re ­ chronological sense is often extrem ely vague. T o be sure, Ficino does
ceived the best possible form ulation, unlike, for instance, the Bible, find parallel texts, especially in the case of D ionysius the A reopagite and
whose every w ord was revealed. T h is concession allowed Ficino to avoid

217 Such as his admission that Plato’s view of the Trinity lent itself to misinterpretation
2,3 Personification: Op., pp. 1297-1299, 1301, 1318. Metonymy: ibid., pp. 1200, by Arians (see below), or that Plato had failed to see and express dearly the truth that
1306, 1315, 1492. Anagogy: ibid., p. 1485; Allen (1981), p. 208. Fable and historia: Op., matter was created in time; see O p., pp. 1443-1444 {Comp, in T im ., cap. XIIII).
pp. 1200, 1318, 1431, 1485, 1539; Allen (1975), pp. 262, 316, 454f. Irony: esp. O p., pp. 2)8 See further below, p. 358.
1132, 1301, 1312 and Frequently elsewhere. Allegory: O p., pp. 1298, 1304, 1320, 1392, 219 A view explained most fully at O p., p. 1427 {Arg. in Rep. IX ), but see also O p ., p.
1397,! 1402, 1404, 143Iff. (the most extended example), 1485; Allen (1975), p. 244; Allen 1438 (Arg. in Rep. X ) and O p ., p. 1484 {Comp, in T im .).
(1981b), pp. 72, 98, 132; etc. Paradox: Op., p. 1200. Captatio benevolentiae (a rhetorical 220 Like Bessarion, and perhaps following Bessarion, he constructs a piece of source
figure) pointed out at Allen (1975), p. 344. criticism to show that Plato could not possibly have written the homosexual love poems
214 O p ., pp. 1386-1398. The suggestion illustrates at once the close historical relation attributed to him in Diogenes, Apuleius, Macrobius and other sources {Vita Platonis, in
of hutnanist imitation to imitation of Christ and the saints, and also the way Ficino’s Platonis opera 1491, sign. a4rb-va; for Bessarion see above, p. 253). Elsewhere, in his
reinterpretation ot pagan philosophy and religion tries to overcome the cognitive argument to the Apology {O p., p. 1389), he tries to reconstruct an historical context in
dissonance set up in Christian society by the humanist appeal to imitate non-Christians. order to explain why Socrates seemed to say that the soul might as well be mortal as im­
215 Op., pp. 1318, 1439. mortal: Socrates, he says, had no doubt ol the soul’s immortality, but he declared himself
216 Some examples from among many at O p ., pp. 1329, 1396, 1397, 1497, 1505, 1534; to be unmoved by either possibility so as to give his judges (who were Epicurean tyrants)
Allen (1981b), p. 80. no opportunity to mock him for his dependence on such a (to them) implausible doctrine.
 346 P A R T IV FLORENCE 347

Proc(us, but he does not u n d ertak e to dem onstrate the parallelism s in a ing “ p ro p e r” and “ im p ro p e r” senses—as, for exam ple, w hen he tries
“ positivist” fashion, as, for instance, Poliziano was co ncurrently doing to explain w hy Socrates, in the Apology, had said that after death either all
in hi^ Miscellanea. Ficino also showed som e critical interest in reco n stru ct­ sensation ceases or the soul is im m ortal, and so appears to doubt the
ing tfte history of P latonism . As we have already noted, he distinguishes soul’s im m ortality:
betw een the skeptical A cadem y and the A cadem y after the tim e of Give this answer first: [Socrates’] doubt is not about all sensation, that is,
Plotifius. Elsew here, he separates the p ost-P lotinian trad itio n into a schola about all cognition, but about awareness of human affairs, or an awareness
vetus,\ including P lu tarch , A m m onius, Plotinus, A m elius, P orphyry, similar to our own. T h at’s in fact what he signifies by what he adds then
Iam blichus and T h eo d o ru s [of A sine], an d a schola nova, com prising in the second part of the disjunction, where he says just what he says in the
Republic, that in the same way that souls there [in the intelligible cosmos]
Syri^nus, Proclus, H erm ias, D am ascius, and O lym piodorus. But both
hold themselves separate [from the body], so here [in the world of corporeity]
these distinctions were d e riv a tiv e ,221 and the first, at least, had been they are wont to be in a state of ignorance. Consider it a dictum directed
forced upon Ficino by an apologetic situ atio n . Pico della M iran d o la had against those who say that souls transmigrate from body to body.225
attacked F icin o ’s in terp retatio n of the Parmenides and the Sophist as con­
taining P la to ’s belief in a d istinction betw een the O n e and Being; Pico, P eter C o m esto r could hardly have done it m ore neatly.
using textual analysis and certain M iddle Platonic sources, tried to claim * * *
the Parmenides was a m ere dialectical exercise. In the course of F icino’s
reply, he suggests that P ic o ’s au th o rity for his dialectical reading of the In conclusion, we m ust re tu rn to the question of w hether and how
Parmenides cam e from the inferior skeptical phase of the Platonic tra d i­ F icin o ’s in terp retatio n of Plato was shaped by his response to the contem ­
tion, when the theological w isdom of the dialogues was “ veiled” , and he p orary an tiplatonism . D espite the statem ents of certain historians, it is
shows that the b etter Platonists, both those of the old and those of the new not true that opposition to the hum anities died out w ith the spread of
schools, were agreed at least in distinguishing the O n e from B eing.222 h u m an ism in the early fifteenth century. T o be sure, few if any critics
Finally, Ficino also displays on a few occasions the vocabulary and ex- w ent so far as to say that no pagan authors should be studied, but m any
persons— an d not only clerics— continued to believe that the interest in
egetic reflexes of scholastic co m m en tato rs, no doubt a relic of his own
scholastic train in g . In end eav o rin g to find u nity of purpose (if not the pag an classics had passed far beyond the bounds w hich A ugustine,
necessarily of doctrine) in the Platonic dialogues, Ficino seems to have Je ro m e , and the o ther F athers had tried to set for it, an d well into the
found useful scholastic techniques for achieving a consensus of au th o ri­ territo ry of a vicious cunositas. T h e antiplatonism of the later Q u a ttro c e n ­
to illustrates the con tin u in g tension. We saw in the previous P art the
ties. A n u m b er of passages sm ack strongly of the scholastic pia inter-
pretatfo, w here alien form s of discourse are translated into m ore fam iliar suspicion w ith w hich a conservative such as Paul II regarded B essarion’s
term inology, so as to be am enable to the operations of logic.223 In some P latonism ; and the Plato-A ristotle controversy as a whole had con­
placep Ficino actually translates P la to ’s dialectical stichomythia into formal siderable resonance in Florence. Ficino was well aw are of it, and it is like­
a rg u m e n ts.224 Elsew here, he m akes use of the scholastic distinguo, defin­ ly th at the apologetic tone of m any of his argum ents (drafted in the later
1460s) owes a good deal to a m ore strident defensiveness about Plato
aroused by T re b iz o n d ’s assau lts.226*It is clear th at, despite F icino’s close
221 On the skeptical phase of the Academy, see O p., p. 1537 (preface to Plotinus); cp.
Augus|tine, Contra Academicos 3.17-19 and Ep. 118. For the schola uetus and nova see O p., 225 O p., p. 1389 = Platoms opera 1491, f. 168ra: “ Responde primo quidem, non de omni
p. 117(3 (Parmenides commentary), where Ficino says the schools are distinguished by their sensu, id est, de omni cognitione, sed de nostrarum rerum sensu, uel nostro simili
attitude to affirmative versus negative theology, and O p . , pp. 1155-1156, where the dubitare. Quod quidem significatur per ilia, quae in parte disiunctionis altera deinde
members of each school are listed. The notion of a schola nova may be an inference from subduntur, ubi idem quod et [om. Op. ] in Repubhca dicit, separatas uidelicet animas
Marinus’ Vita Procli, passim. eodem pacto sese illic, quo et hie solebant agnoscere. Ubi considera dictum contra illos
222 For the debate with Pico see Allen (1986), passim, and O p., pp. 1155-1156. qui dicunt animas de corporibus in corpora transmigrare. ” Ficino then adds the
223 See tor example, the Philebus commentary, ed. Allen (1975), pp. 148f., 156f., 278. historical argument given in note 220. For another example of the distinguo, see O p., pp.
224 $ee the Phaedrus commentary, ed. Allen (1981), p. 146; O p., pp. 1 2 7 4 - 1 2 7 6 (an ex­ 1316, 1318.
tended rationalization of Plato’s anti-empiricist argument in the Theaetetus)', p. 1516f. 226 For instances where Ficino shows himself conscious of the background ol the Plato-
(Platons proof of the existence of God in Laws X reworked into syllogisms). For other Aristotle controversy, see O p., pp. 1404, 1443, 1491, 1493, 1496, 1510; Comm, in Conv.
dements of scholasticism in Ficino's thought, see Kristeller (1956), pp. 38-43, 46-50, 1.4, ed. Marcel, p. 143. Ficino’s general indebtedness to Bessanon, which I hope to ex­
54-55. plore on another occasion, may count as additional evidence.
 348 P A R T IV FLORENCE 349

connections w ith L orenzo an d o th er lead in g citizens of Florence, he still F ath ers, h u m an loves, riches and glory rem ained obstacles, not stair­
felt him self and his “ P lato n ici” to belong to an em battled m inority, su r­ w ays, to the d iv in e.230
roun d ed by Philistine clergy an d im pious A ristotelians who were in ­ C riticism of Plato also cam e from other q u arters. As G reek antiquity
capable of u n d erstan d in g P la to ’s deeper m eaning. P o lizian o ’s preface to becam e b etter know n, ancient slanders respecting P la to ’s political
his translation of the Charmides, u n d ertak en in the later 1470s when he behavior and his sexual m ores received new life. T h e latter, especially,
was u n d e r the influence o f F icinian P latonism , shows a sim ilar aliena­ had becom e well know n in the m ore licentious literatu re of the period,
tio n .227 W e have already seen the suspicions and criticism s Ficino aro u s­ from the Hermaphrodite of P an o rm ita, to the poetry and letters of Niccolo
ed in his sp iritual guides, A ntonio degli Agli and A rchbishop A ntoninus, della L u n a an d his Florentine contubernium, to the salacious epigram s of
bo th io f whom saw F icin o ’s interest in pag an religion as a real th reat to Luigi Pulci an d (in his youth) of Lorenzo d e ’M ed ici.231 If the dialogues
his spiritual form ation; A ntonino in general kept up the pressure on of L orenzo Pisano (the head of F icino’s confraternity) accurately depict
hum an ism g enerated earlier in the c en tu ry by his teach er G iovanni co n tem p o rary discussions, the defective m orality of the ancient philo­
D om in ici.228 N o r did opposition end with the death of St. A ntoninus in sophers was often throw n up against young enthusiasts for pagan thought
1459. W e have, from 1487, the shocked letter of the G eneral of the in the hope o f b ringing them back to th eir senses. As a certain priest
Carrtaldolese O rd e r, Pietro D olfin, to G u id o L orenzi, prio r of the church nam ed N icolaus is m ade to say in reproach of L orenzo and his young
of S hnta M a ria degli A ngeli w here Ficino gave his lectures on Plato and proteges:
Plotilnus. Where, pray, do you believe the mind of Aristotle is [a subtle hit at Aristo­
Entering thus the House of Angels, I was astonished to see what is tle’s titivations on the immortality question], corrupted with envy against
his teacher [Plato], infected with circuitous dialectic and those trivial doc­
Customarily the house of God practically filled with a chorus of lay persons
pn benches, an oratory changed into a gymnasium; the seat by the altar, trines he grinds into dust? Where is the lust of Plato, who was never
reserved for the priest alone to celebrate the holy rites of Mass, betrayed ashamed to fill nearly all his dialogues with the love-affairs and erotic kisses
to a philosopher; the special dwelling-place of hymns and prayers converted of young boys? ... Do you think they are among the choirs of angels, my
into a secular school and auditorium!229 dear host?232*

L ate in th e cen tu ry w ould com e the m ost fam ous o p ponent of

Platdnism , S avonarola, w ho, using arg u m en ts draw n from G eorge of
230 See Savonarola’s Triumphus Crucis, ed. M. Ferrara (Rome, 1961), pp. 96f., 213f.;
T reb izo n d , w ould attack the excessive attach m en t to Plato and pagan and his De simplicitate Chnstianae vitae, ed. P. G. Ricci (Rome, 1959), p. 19f. On
theology in rin g in g serm ons delivered in S. M a ria del Fiore. A nd in the Savonarola and Plato see R. Ridolfi, Vita di Girolamo Savonarola, 2nd edn. (Rome, 1952),
treatises w ith w hich he flooded the F lorentine presses in the 1490s, too, 1: 6, 148; Garin (1979), pp. 201-212; Walker, p. 54f.; Weinstein, Savonarola and Florence,
pp. 185-192. The anti-Savonarolan tendency of Ficino’s lectures on St. Paul is discussed
the great D om in ican p reach er w ould from a strict T h o m ist position by Verde 4.3: 1270-1273. For the continued effect of Savonarola’s antiplatonism in the
refute in detail P la to ’s views on the soul, especially the doctrine of next century, see Zanobi Acciaiuoli’s preface to his edition of Theodoret of Cyr’s Curatio
tran sm ig ratio n , and w ould condem n those who com pared C hrist to morborum graecorum, published as an “ antidote” to the first Greek edition of Plato’s com­
plete works, printed by Aldus in 1513. On Zanobi (a former disciple of Ficino) and the
“ Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and other great philosophers’’. Fie would episode see D B I 1: 93-94, and below, App. 16, last note. For the opposition to Plato’s
also criticise sharply the belief of the Platonists that the love of G od could psychology from Domenico da Fiandra, a contemporary professor at the Florentine
som ehow be g ro u n d ed in earth ly loves; for S avonarola, as for m ost of the Studio, see Verde 4: 88f.
231 See above, pp. Ilf., 81, and 131; on Niccolo della Luna, see Della Torre, p. 295f.,
esp. the letter quoted on p. 298: “ Quid Plato, qui Veneris cervici divinos impendit
227 See App. 15. honores, pudoremque contempsit” , etc. On Luigi Pulci’s mockery of Ficino’s Platonism,
228 See above, p. 279, Della Torre, pp. 252-263, and below, Vol. 2, App. 16. See App. see Verde 4: 130f., 246f., 285f., and P. Orvieto, Pulci medievale. Studio sulla poesia volgare
16 also for Bartolomeo Scala’s hostility to Ficino’s syncretistic tendencies. fiorentina del ’400 (Rome, 1978).
229 Suppl. 2:234: “ Ingressus itaque [in domo Angelorum], tunc de more domum Dei 232 My trans. from Lorenzo Pisano, Dialogi humilitatis in Vat. lat. 961, f. 4v, quoted
miratUs sum valde repletum laicorum sedilibus chorum, oratorium in gymnasium by Field, Platonic Academy, chapter 6: “ Ubinam Aristotelis infectam in magistrum invidia
mutatum, sedem iuxta altare philosopho traditam, quae ad concelebranda sacrosanta mentem suis dialecticae gyris atque Menandraeis acutulis minutisque ad pulverem
missafum solemnia soli servata est sacerdoti, orationis denique et psalmodiae peculiarem detritis doctrinis, lasciviamque Platonis, quern nequaquam dispuduit [jzc] puerorum
mansionem scolam saecularium et auditorium factam.” Kristeller’s argument (Kristeller amoribus ac saviis ferme omnes replere dialogos ... esse creditis? Forte inter angelorum
[1956], p. I l l and note 45) that this account describes Ficino's contemporary lectures choreas, mi hospes, tu arbitrare?” For further discussion of the debates in Pisano’s circle
on Plotinus is almost certainly correct. See also M ostra , p. 149. on the value of pagan philosophy, see Field, ibid.
 350 P A R T IV FLORENCE 351

T rad itio n al scholastic criticism of P lato also had a co ntem porary voice dialogic presentation even m ade it difficult to.find out w hat his positive
in F icino’s rival edu cato r, J o h n A rgyropoulos. A ccounts of A rgyropou­ doctrine was. P ier C andido D ecem brio had m ade some clum sy attem pts
los’ “ P lato n ism ” have been greatly exaggerated in m o d ern scholarly to protect Plato from this charge by tu rn in g the Republic into a system atic
literatu re. In reality A rgyropoulos was a thorough P eripatetic who, while treatise and finding an allegory of hum an life in its ten books. F icino’s
in general ad o p tin g a concordist stance w ith respect to the differences b e­ approach, how ever, was far m ore effective and sophisticated. R ep resen t­
tween the two philosophers, clearly believed A ristotle’s system atic and ing Plato as a poetic theologian, he was able to circum vent the criticism
orderly treatm en t of philosophy m ade him superior to Plato for entirely. For as a theologian, dealing with divine m atters beyond the
pedagogic purposes. H e even accepted A risto tle’s version of the history range of discursive reason and h u m an language, Plato could not from the
of philosophy in which the m ore vague and poetic philosophy of Plato very n atu re of things have been clear and orderly; the sapientia of divine
and his predecessors is m ade rigorous an d scientific by the system atic ap ­ things was higher th an the scientia of things h um an. It was in fact A risto­
plication of A ristotelian logic . 233 tle, or his in terpreters, who had been tem pted into im piety by attem pting
Iri short, despite the efforts of Bessarion and the early hum anist tra n s­ to capture the divine in the webs of logic and h u m an language. M ore­
lators, Ficino had still to reckon w ith the task of m aking Plato acceptable over, as an inspired poet, it was appropriate for Plato to speak obscurely
to a C h ristian society w ith strong in h erited notions about w hat con­ and in m ysteries. Like m ost m edieval interpreters, Ficino believed that
stituted good pedagogy. F icin o ’s exegetical response to this situation, onginalia were by n atu re, as it w ere, obscure and difficult; it was the func­
how ever, represents a considerable advance in sophistication upon his tion of the com m entary and the gloss to “ o p e n ” the te x t . 235 It was not
hum anist predecessors, and even upon Bessarion. It is tru e that F icino’s the function of poetic w riting to expound doctrine clearly, but rather to
techniques on certain occasions resem ble that of the earlier hum anist m ake doctrine attractive and m em orable, to suggest th ro u g h images and
tradition. As has been noted, there are a few instances of bow dlerization ecstatic language things that could not be expressed in cold prose. “ T h u s
and C h ristian izatio n and, m ore frequently, appeals to the authority of no one ought to w onder that Plato very rarely uses a doctrinal order of
the Fathers. But Ficino as a rule does not parade proplatonic authorities w riting, b u t rath er always uses a purgatorial and h o rtato ry order, that
or attack antip lato n ic ones; he does not em ploy wholesale censorship, is, an o rder intended to co n v ert . ” 236 T o ask for a p ro p er pedagogical
suppression, o r clum sy fram in g devices in p resenting his translations of o rder in Plato w ould be like com plaining that G od had not inspired the
Plato. H e does not need to. F icin o ’s entire position as a N eoplatonist, his sacred w riters to com pose a Summa theologiae. H ence there was an order
belief in the ancient theology, his vision of Socrates, Plato, and the in P la to ’s dialogues, b ut it is a dem iurgic o rder im itated from N ature,
Platonic corpus together g u aran tee preem ptively, as it were, that the reflecting the sam e artistic patterns and C o m p lem en tarity as N ature
dialogues shall escape the criticism of th eir opponents. herself.
In ord er to see how F icin o ’s exegesis also functions as an apologetic, T h e second m ajor genus of antiplatonic criticism consisted of attacks
we shall once m ore look briefly at the m ajor heads of antiplatonic on P la to ’s m oral doctrines and on the im m oral behavior depicted in the
criticism and shall observe how F icin o ’s broad position provides a built- dialogues. Especially repellent were the doctrines of m arital and m aterial
in defense against criticism . 234 com m unism in Republic V, the drinking parties of Laws / - / / , and the
Fifom the begin n in g of the fifteenth cen tu ry Plato had been com pared form s and language of a hom osexual culture revealed in m any other
unfavorably w ith A ristotle on the m a tte r of his pedagogic utility; Plato, dialogues.
it whs claim ed, expounded no science in an orderly fashion, and his
235 This recalls Bessarion’s distinction between Plato and Aristotle as similar to the
233 See A. Field in Supplementum Festivum, pp. 299-326. In many contemporary sources distinction between patristic authorities and scholastic interpreters; see above, p. 223. It
Argyropoulos is recognized as Florence’s “ Aristotle” , in more or less explicit contrast was a major advance in historical consciousness when humanists like Bruni and Poliziano
to fief “ Plato” , Ficino. See for instance Naldo Naldi’s second Eclogue (Bucolica ..., ed. began systematically to treat obscurity, not as an inherent quality of onginalia, but as the
W. L. Grant (Florence, 1974]) where “ Crisis” (Landino) convinces “ Pirineus” (Ficino) result of a lost historical context which could be reconstructed.
not to dispute with “ Nicomachus” (Argyropoulos); or a letter of J. A. Campanus in his 236 See Op., p. 1411 = Platoms opera 1491, f. 220va (dr£. in Rep. VII): “ Itaque nemo
Opera: (Venice, 1502), sign. G. viii recto. mirari debet Platonem doctrinali scribendi ordine uti rarius. purgatorio uero atque ex-
234 For a different view of Ficino’s apologetics, see R. Marcel, “ L’apologetique de hortatorio, id est conuersorio, semper.” For other passages where Ficino asserts that
Marsile Ficin,” in Pensee humaniste et tradition chretienne aux X lV e e XVIe siecies (Paris, 1950), Plato followed an order suitable to a divinely inspired author, see the Praefatio {O p., p.
pp. 159-168. 1129), and O p ., p. 1532; Allen (1975), p. 484.
352 P A R T IV FLORENCE 353

Fipino’s defense of Republic V resem bles, up to a point, the defense needs of societies suffering from excessive m aterialism . T h e im plication
workjed out by Pier C a n d id o D ecem b rio . 237 A ristotle was w rong to say is plain th at private p roperty is the norm al regim en which only proves
that P la to ’s com m unism was u n h eard of; it had in fact been practiced by ineffective w hen extrem e divisions appear; in that case only an extrem e
the G aram an tes in A frica, the B rahm ans in India, the G ym nosophists, cure, com m unism , can relieve the political patient.
Essenes, P y thagoreans, and early C hristian s; some religious orders p ra c ­
Thus when he noticed that individuals, families and states alike were every­
ticed it to the present day. M arital com m unism was m ore difficult; Ficino where and always suffering gravely, and had not heretofore been freed from
generally skirts the issue, m aking the rhetorical point that at least P la to ’s disease—nor even had their sufferings in the least relieved—by any of the
marijtal regulations were established by law, and did not p erm it the medicines applied in vain for so many centuries by their political doctors,
sacrilege of concubinage so often found in the contem porary priesthood. Phoebean Plato, the doctor of the human race, resorted in a prudent and
Ficirio interp rets aw ay P la to ’s infanticide, and explains the “ victory pious fashion to that important medical law sanctioned by the authors,
[stating that] if anyone fails to improve after such-and-such a medicine—
kisses’’ to be exchanged betw een male w arriors as a jo k e . 238 H e also say, cold medicines—have been applied for a long time, he may at length
raises the point that P la to ’s polity is useful less as a b lu ep rin t for society properly change over to [the opposite cure], hot medicines. Plato, then, see­
than as “ an exem plar to be im itated as far as possible in train in g ing that it had not for so many centuries profited the human race to have
citizens’’; even if it were possible, which is by no m eans clear, its im ple­ property distributed by law—indeed, matters were daily becoming
m entation w ould be contin g en t upon the existence of philosopher-kings worse—quite rightly changed over to the laws of friendship which pre­
scribed that all things should be common among friends, so that, having
educated in the P latonic m an n er. removed division and the cause of division and misery, they might achieve
T h u s far F icino's apologetic is not m uch different from D ecem b rio ’s. concord, unity, and happiness . 240*
But Ficino is also able to forestall criticism by appealing to principles im ­
plied by his view of Plato an d the Platonic corpus. Indeed, as he claim s A still m ore effective defense of Plato in this m atter, how ever, was im ­
at the beginning of his arg u m en t to Republic V, P lato ’s com m unism needs plied by F icino’s belief that the Platonic corpus contained doctrines
no apology. w hich, though useful, were not strictly Platonic. Ficino stated specifically
at the beginning of the arg u m en t to Laws I that P la to ’s tru e political doc­
I am well aware that there will be some who will expect from me an apologia trines, the ones he would recom m end in a practical sense, were to be
in which I defend against the calumnies of ignorant and malicious persons
|he doctrine of civic communism found in this fifth dialogue. But I beg found in the Law s, while those of the Republic were P ythagorean and
them to read Plato himself, read him carefully, and pass judgment without Socratic, thus m ore objects of hope and p ray er (cf. Rep. IX , 592A) than
envy. They will then (I know whereof I speak) require no apologia . 239 rules to be followed in constructing actual societies.
T h e reason they will need no apologia, Ficino then explains, is that In ancient times, Magnanimous Lorenzo, the same age (almost) saw three
P lato ’s com m unism is not a universal norm to be observed by all very great lights of wisdom, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato. I have found,
however, that the wisdom of Pythagoras consists more in contemplation,
societies, but a special prescription p rep ared by D octor Plato to m eet the that of Socrates more in action, while the wisdom of Plato is to combine ac­
tion and contemplation. Moreover, both the speculative doctrine of
237 | See his In dialogum [De republica] quintum epitome in O p . , pp. 1404-1406. I have found Pythagoras and the moral doctrine of Socrates seem very remote from the
no evidence of a direct influence of Pier Candido Decembrio on Ficino, though there are common custom of men. In Plato’s case, however, both his speculative and
some striking resemblances. For Ficino's knowledge of the earlier Chrysoloras-Uberto his moral doctrine everywhere so temper the divine with the human that
Decefnbrio version, see App. 18A.
238 Ibid., p. 1405 = Platoms opera 1491, f. 209ra-rb: “ Inter haec ubi nutritionem eius 240 Ib id .: “ Plato igitur Phoebeus humani generis medicus, cum animaduerteret et
spernit, qui uel praeter legem, uel ex inutili [utili Op. ] natus fuerit, uel inutilis [inutili singulos homines et familias et ciuitates semper et ubique grauiter aegrotare, neque ullis
Op. |, intellige non esse perdendum, sed in loco occultiori, uel in suburbiis uilius nutrien- hactenus ciuilium medicorum medicamentis tot saecula iam frustra curantium, uel [ut
dum, extra exactissimam regulam illam, qua nutriuntur hi, qui assumendi ad custodiam ed. ] liberari morbo, uel saltern leuari paulum atque minimum conualescere, tarn
iudic^ntur,” etc. ... “ Quod uero de puerorum osculis dicitur, iocosum quoddam est prudenter quam pie ad legem illam sese contulit praecipuam apud medicos, qua
Glaufronis et leuandi taedii gratia dictum.’’ medicinae [medicina Op. ] sanciunt auctores, si quis medicamentis talibus, puta frigidis,
239 Op., p. 1404 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 208vb: “ Non sum nescius fore nonnullos qui diu adhibitis minime conualescat, esse tandem rite ad calida transeundum. Cognoscens
apolqgiam a nobis expectent, qua quintum hunc librum communionem omnium in ergo genus humanum per leges distribuentes propria tot saeculis nihil proficere, immo
ciuitate ponentem defendamus contra calumnias turn maledicorum turn etiam ignoran- uero in deterius quotidie labi, non iniuria ad amicitiae se transtulit leges, communia inter
tium. Verum legant Platonem ipsum, precor, legant diligenter ac sine inuidia iudicent; amicos omnia fore iubentes, ut diuisione diuisionisque et miseriae sublata causa, concor-
apologiam (scio quid loquor) nullam desiderabunt. diam, unionem, felicitatem [-que add. Op. \ consequantur [consequemur O p.}"
354 P A R T IV FL O R E N C E 355

it can easily be accommodated even to common human custom, while at the F icino’s general stance as a N eoplatonist also provided him with a
Same time converting men to the divine and the eternal. It must not on this ready answ er to those who charged Plato w ith u n n a tu ra l vice. W e have
Recount be thought that Plato diverged from Pythagoras and Socrates—he
fevered both of them as though they were divinities—; rather he mixed already seen how Bessarion countered this attack by placing P lato’s erotic
together the genius of both, like a regulator (if I may so express myself) of language w ithin a context of m etaphysical eros inherited from the D iony­
tthe divine and the human. So in a sense one could say that the Socratic and sian tradition. T h e problem was even m ore acute for Ficino, for he and
Pythagorean genii were merely divine, the Aristotelian genius and those of his followers w ere com m itted to an im itation of the Platonic dialogues
Other later philosophers were merely hum an, but Plato’s was at once human w hich positively dem anded th at they Find some acceptable interpretation
find divine. You ask what the point is? So that we might remember that the
of P la to ’s hom osexual lan g u ag e . 242 If Ficino did not copy B essarion’s
present disposition of laws—since they are handed down by Plato himself
under his own persona [the Athenian stranger], not under Pythagorean or solution directly, he certainly had available to him the Symposium and the
Socratic personae, as usually elsewhere—quite rightly steers a middle course works of D ionysius with which Bessarion had w orked; his experiences in
between the human and divine, and avoids drawing us up to the hidden and the confraternity of Lorenzo Pisano would furth erm o re have put him in
esoteric, or downwards to inferior things. On this account the ten books of touch w ith the m edieval tradition of spiritual friendship. O n e m ight, in­
(he Republic are more Pythagorean and Socratic, while the present laws are
deed, think that F icino’s fam ous doctrine of P latonic.L ove was no more
adjudged to be more Platonic. The former polity was the work of someone
praying or wishing; this present disposition is the work of someone choosing. than a classicizing of confraternal spiritual friendship; b u t it was more
So those unable to ascend those arduous heights may at least not disdain to than that. It had also a m etaphysical basis. T h e N eoplatonists, followed
climb these gentler hills. ... Here, then, he will not compel men, if they are by St. A ugustine, in general held that evil had no positive being of its
unwilling, to hold all things in common; he will permit the usual custom of ow n, b ut was rath er a privation of being w hich dim inished the reality of
private ownership. Though our most cautious charioteer will not relax en­
an essence w ithout w orking substantial change. H ence in the dialogues,
tirely the reins, [since he does put limits on private wealth ] . 241
w henever Plato appears to be speaking of an illicit love, one m ust read
T h u s F icino’s broad portray al of the P latonic corpus as a chest of spiritual him as speaking of its higher spiritual essence.
m edjcines effectively u n d ercu ts the charges th at Plato had advocated wild­ T h e distinction of heavenly and earthly loves is, indeed, but one instance
ly im m oral and im practical political arran g em en ts. of a principle Ficino uses th ro u g h o u t the com m entaries to overcom e the
difficulty of im itating alien cultural forms. T h u s w henever Plato attacks a
241 Op., p. 1488 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 166va: “ Seculum [Secum 0 p .\ apud priscos p h enom enon w hich has value for his own contem poraries, Ficino assumes
pene idem, magnanime Laurenti, tria podssimum habuit sapientiae lumina: Pythago-
Plato is attacking an ontologically inferior form of that phenom enon; con­
ram, Socratem, et Platonem. Compertum autem habemus sapientiam quidem Pytha-
gorae magis in contemplando, Socratis uero in agendo magis, Platonis denique in versely, w hen Plato seems to be praising som ething we abhor, he is in fact
contetnplando pariter atque agendo consistere. Praeterea disciplinam tarn Pythagorae praising a purified and heavenly form of it which we, w ith our earthly vi­
specu]atiuam quam Socratis moralem a communi hominum consuetudine uideri
sion, are not able to see. Such is the case with heavenly and earthly love,
remotiorem. Platonis vero doctrinam speculatiuam pariter et moralem ubique ita
diuinUm cum humano contemperare ut et communi hominum consuetudini facile possit w ith true and false rhetoric, w ith divine and m erely h u m an p o etry . 243 Even
accorpmodari et simul homines ad diuina aeternaque conuertere. Neque vero putandum
est prppterea Platonem a Pythagora et Socrate quos quasi numina colit, esse diuersum,
sed niiixtum potius atque utriusque ingenii quasi quendam, ut ita loquar, diuini ad 242 For the imitation of behavior depicted in the dialogues or reported elsewhere as
humanum moderatorem, ut quodammodo dici possit in illis quidem ingenium duntaxat characteristic of the ancient Academy, see above, p. 2961.; Della Torre, p. 629t.; and
diuinpm fuisse, in Aristotele uero et ceteris post Platonem philosophis humanum tantum, Allen (1977).
sed ip Platone diuinum pariter et humanum. Quorsum haec? Ut meminerimus 243 For divine and human love, see the Symposium commentary, passim, and above,
praesCntem legum dispositionem, quoniam ab ipso Platone, non per pythagoricam per- p. 294. For a passage which suggests that Ficino’s doctrine of “ Platonic love” was a
sonarh uel socraticam [Socratem Op. ], ut solent cetera, immo uero per propriam Platonis direct reply to contemporary charges that Socrates and Plato were homosexuals, see O p .,
ipsius personam nobis traditur, non iniuria uitam quandam inter diuina et humana p. 765 (E pp ., Lib. IV): “ [Plato] dormiebat solus. Contrariam uitam multum uituperabat
mediam obtinere, neque nos per abdita et inuia quaedam trahere, neque tamen ad in­ [Cp. Plato, Ep. VII , 326B]. Ad amandos adolescentes quemadmodum et Socrates suus
feriors [interiora 0p . \ deducere. Quamobrem decern illi De Republica libri pythagorici uidebatur paulo pronior. Verum uterque tarn ratione continens, quam sensu procliuis.
magis sunt atque socratici, praesentes uero leges magis platonicae iudicentur. Ilia Quam diuine isti amauerint, et quo pacto, quae de amore locuti sunt, exponunt, et nos
respublica uouentis fuerit et optantis [optandis 0 p .\, dispositio praesens sit eligentis, ut satis in libro De amore tractauimus. ” Ficino here seems to admit that Plato and Socrates
qui in arduum illud ascendere nequeunt, ad hos saltern clementiores colles non dedignen- had homosexual tendencies, but insists that they kept them in check. Cp. also Op., p.
tur accedere. ... Hie ergo non coget homines si noluerint fuoluerint Op.] inter se facere 1511 (Arg. in Laws) where Ficino points out approvingly Plato’s condemnation of
cuncta communia, permittet ut fieri solet propria singulos possidere. Neque tamen homosexuality as equivalent to incest. See also Allen (1981b), pp. 73, 75. for true and
cautissimus auriga noster omnino laxabit habenas,” [etc.] false rhetoric, see above, p. 326; true and false poetry: Op. 1417.
356 P A R T IV FLORENCE 357

drunkenness has a good function as well as a bad, as a way of diagnosing according to the precise rule of dogm atic definitions, the C hristian
m oral illnesses . 244 T o question any of these readings, one w ould have P latonist w ould see theological knowledge as laid up in the heavens,
either to confess oneself a d irty -m in d ed an d destructive caviller or to bring beyond the reach entirely of definitions and symbola. O n e could enunciate
into question F icin o ’s whole project o f p resen ting the P latonic corpus as C h ristian form ulations of divine gnosis w ith special confidence, but that
an elevated an d inspiring p ro g ram of religious education. did not entitle one to dismiss all n o n -C hristian th o ught as erroneous or
T his species of arg u m en t thus plainly verges on w hat K arl P opper calls inferior. P la to ’s religious experience was not qualitatively different from
“ secondary e la b o ra tio n ” and it provides an im p o rtan t clue as to ju st w hat th at of M oses and the H ebrew prophets, and his works therefore de­
Ficino is doing w ith his in te rp re ta tio n of P la to . 245 H e is in effect d e m a n d ­ served the sam e sort o f pia interpretatio th at had been extended to theirs.
ing, not that the read er accept his evidence as to the te x t’s m eaning, but In d eed , F icino’s ability to protect Plato from criticism was greatly
that he ‘‘en ter the A cad em y ” , that is, acq u ire a Platonic m entality. T h e enhanced by his distinction betw een periods of “ in sp ira tio n ” and “ inter­
tendency to secondary elaboration is m ost clearly show n in the arg u m en t p re ta tio n ” in the unfolding of the providential plan to give wisdom to the
to the Parmenides, w here Ficino requires the read er of the dialogues to h u m a n race. T his is seen m ost clearly in F icino’s treatm en t of P lato’s
purify him self m orally and intellectually before approaching the “ sacred know ledge of the T rin ity . 248 Ficino was deeply troubled over a long
read in g ” . 246 A nyone, p resum ably, who d o u b ts that the reading is sacred period by the allegations of G eorge of T reb izo n d that Platonism had been
is eo ipso shown to be insufficiently p u re an d therefore unqualified to in ter­ an en co u rag em en t to A rian Christological e rro rs . 249 U nlike Bessarion, he
pret the text. C orrect reading, in o th er w ords, requires that one be a did not sim ply shuffle off the charge, but ra th e r had the honesty to adm it
Platonist. T his is no d o u b t the secret of th at arch and ironic tone, that th at there was m uch tru th in it. M ost of the ancient Platonists had m ade
“ m y$tagogic” language in which Ficino and his friends spoke of the the Logos (identified with the N eoplatonic N ous) ontologically subor­
Platonic m ysteries. It was not only an ad m irab le device for preventing d in ate to the O n e (identified with the F ather), and this probably had acted
dangerously literal readings of the M aster. Like any private language, it as an inducem ent to A rianism . But by placing Plato him self in an entire­
also reassured the F lorentine Platonists o f th eir superiority to the world ly different category from that of his in terp reters, by equ atin g him with
outside, allow ing them to reg ard its vu lg ar erro rs with a know ing smile. M oses an d the prophets, Ficino was able at least to prevent Plato from
In thpt sense, perhaps, it was the an cesto r of the sounre de raison. being stained with the errors of his in terpreters. Plato, like M oses and
T h e last and greatest obstacle Ficino was obliged to face in naturalizing the prophets, had come to the threshold of u n d erstan d in g the m ysteries
Plato in his own society was the obstacle o f P la to ’s religious beliefs. H ere, of the T rin ity , b u t his und erstan d in g had been obscure and poetic. Both
too, F icino’s in terp retatio n proved to be ideally adapted to repelling C h ristia n and pagan platonici had advanced in terpretations of his
criticism . From the broadest perspective, his belief in the possibility of T rin ita ria n utterances: the g reater n u m b er (including some C hristians
natu ral religion— of a h u m an ability to a tta in , and a divine willingness to such as O rigen) had taken a view which ultim ately cam e to be considered
give, religious know ledge, w hatever o n e ’s form al confession247— this u n o rthodox; a few (all of them C hristians) had ascended to the true o r­
teaching would have the effect o f ch an g in g toto caeio the C h ristian th in k e r’s thodox doctrine of consubstantiality . 250 B ut it would be a great m istake
approach to Plato. Instead of m easu rin g his tru th or e rro r confidently to suppose that Plato him self had fallen into erro r; as Ficino w rote, com ­
m en tin g on the Seventh Letter, “ Plato ... added that none was alive then,
244 This was Ficino’s defense of Plato’s drinking regulations in Laws /, which had been or w ould be bo rn to posterity, who m ight discover P lato ’s m ind concern­
so violently attacked by George of Trebizond. See O p., pp. 1491-1494; cp. 1399. ing divine m a tte rs . ” 251 O ne m ight, then, in a ra th e r puckish way, sug-
245 Secondary elaboration (as the term is employed by Popper rather than by Freud)
is a device of non-scientific or religious thought whereby a theory, belief, or interpreta­
tion is rendered formally irrefutable by any evidence. 248 For all this see Allen (1984a) and Allen (1987), who corrects Wind’s earlier account
246 &.rg. in Parmemdem (O p., pp. 1136-1137 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 22rb): “ Ad cuius (Pagan Mysteries, pp. 241-244).
sacranp lectionem quisquis accedet, prius sobrietate animi mentisque libertate se 249 Ficino does not actually mention George, but the context makes it virtually certain
praeparet, quam attrectare mysteria coelestis operis audeat.’’ For the meaning of that he had him in mind.
“ sobrjetate animi mentisque libertate” here and further remarks on the whole passage, 25° 'phjs recalls Petrarch’s famous phrase “ a maioribus Plato, Aristoteles laudatur a
see Allen (1986), pp. 434-435. pluribus” , both of which statements rest on the common assumption that only a few may
247 To be distinguished from natural theology, that is, what man may infer about God ascend the greatest heights.
on the basis ot the natural discursive activities of reason; natural theology does not imply, 251 Platonic Theology, ed. Marcel, 3:168-169, quoted by Allen (1984a), p. 567 (Allen’s
as natural religion does, the deification of the human intellect. translation).
358 P A R T IV FL O R E N C E 359

gest that, at least in a few m atters which concerned him deeply, Ficino O ne in inner experience . 254 Som etim es Ficino sees it typologically as a
anticipated S chleierm ach er’s distinction betw een P latonism and prophecy of the resurrection of the body . 255 In every case Ficino suggests
N eoplatonism — though F icin o ’s aim s and his conclusions ab o u t the that it is the m ysterious and prophetic character of P la to ’s wisdom that
“ urspruengliche P la to n ” were obviously very different. has led to the u nfortunate m isapprehensions of his interpreters and
Bpt the efficiency of F icin o ’s herm eneutical system for dealing with ap ­ enem ies.
parent theological errors in Plato is best seen in the case of the doctrine
* * *
of tran sm ig ratio n . Even S alutati, it will be recalled, had been forced to
adm jt that P lato had fallen into d angerous errors on the m atter. But In sum , we m ay conclude that F icino’s apologetic and his exegesis were
Ficino saw the m a tte r differently. T h e attrib u tio n of this ‘‘ridiculous old m utually reinforcing aspects of his activity as an in terpreter. It is not my
wives’ tale” to Plato by P lotinus, A ugustine, N em esius, C alcidius, the intention to im ply, needless to say, that F icino’s in terp retatio n of Plato,
glossa ordinana, and St. T h o m as A quinas (and by co n tem porary op­ still less his own system of C hristian Platonism , was nothing but the solu­
ponents of Plato such as S avonarola) deeply irritated him , and he insists tion to a set of apologetic challenges. Ficino was a m an deeply concerned
sevefal dozen tim es in the Commentaria that we should not u n d erstan d w ith the spiritual m aladies of his day, and to Find a-cure for these was
P lato ’s discussion of the doctrine in any straightforw ard or literal w ay . 252 always, perhaps, his p aram o u n t concern. M uch of F icino’s exegesis in
Ficino uses a n u m b er of techniques to defend Plato against criticism the Commentaria in Platonem has no obvious apologetic function, and is
caused by false in terp retatio n . Som etim es the doctrine is explained away directed sim ply, as far as one m ay see, at an und erstan d in g of the
by appeal to the D egrees of T ru th principle; Ficino will claim it was a Platonic text. A nd F icino’s own theological m edicines for Florentine ills
Pythagorean invention to w hich Plato was not necessarily co m m itted . 253 were blended from m any sources, both C hristian and N eoplatonic, not
Som etim es Ficino follows B essarion in seeing the doctrine of tran sm ig ra­ ju st from his reading of the dialogues. But in order to m ake use of the
tion in general as a “ v u lg arized ” version of the retu rn of the soul to the curative pow er of P lato ’s w ritings, he needed first to render them accep­
table to his disciples and to the religious and political authorities both he
252 See Augustine, Civ. Dei X.30; Nemesius Denal. hom. 2 ( = PG 40: 580); Macrobius, and his disciples respected. T hese needs clearly dictated to a great extent
In somn. Scip. 11.13.10-12; Glossa ordinana [at Matt. 14:1, where King Herod is said to
have held the doctrine]; Aquinas, In II Sent. 19.1.1, solutio-, idem, Summa contra Gent. the shape, and m any of the distinctive features, of the Ficinian in ter­
11.83, cap. 37. Transmigration was also condemned in articles published by the Inquisi­ p retation of Plato. It was, indeed, Ficino’s urgent thirst for a new
tion 4t the University of Pisa in 1490; see Verde 4: 914. Ficino denies that Plato held religious wisdom w ithin the bounds of orthodoxy that brought him to
the doctrine at O p . , pp. 1320, 1389, 1391-1392, 1427, 1438 (“ ridiculam ... fabellam ab
anicularum fabulis nihilo discrepantem” ), 1484, 1515; Allen (1981), pp. 164, 168f. See create the m ost powerful and sophisticated attem pt of the age to reconcile
also tfie Platonic Theology 17.3-4 (ed. Marcel, 3:164, 167-168): “ Deposita denique figura the works of Plato with the values of C hristian society in the R enaissance.
homipis, eius bestiae subit corpus, cuius se moribus simillimam praestitit, seu inserat se
ferino foetui fiatque propria ferini corporis anima, ut Plotinus, Numenius, Harpocratius,
Boethius existimant, seu animae ferinae seipsam iungat atque ferae sit comes, ut placuit
Herrniae, Svrianoque et Proculo.” See Proclus, In Tim. 329D, ed. Diehl, 3:294f. and 254 See Hankins (1986), p. 292; and above, p. 258f., for Bessarion.
Herrpias, ed. Couvreur, p. 170f; cp. Op., p. 1514. For other remarks on Ficino’s subtle 255 Op., p. 1391 = Platonis opera 1491, f. 174va (Arg. in Phd.): “ Ideoque sicut ex uiuen-
treatrVient of metempsychosis, see Allen (1984b), pp. 173-174, 179-180, 215, 226, tibus Fiunt mortui, sic ex mortuis uiuences quandoque resurgere. Ubi uidetur mortuorum
241-242. resurrectionem uaticinari quam et in Politico comprobat. ’ Cp. Eusebius, Praep. euang.
253 O p . , p. 1391: “ Aggreditur deinde rationem de reminiscentia, idem quod et paulo X III.13.30.
ante hrobantem, animam et ante corpus vivere et post corpus. Tu vero [Ficino addresses
the reader/hearer] eiusmodi rationes esse intellige Pythagoricas.” Op., p. 1392: “ Quod
animhrum transitus narrat in bestias, Pythagoricum est.” At O p . , p. 1389 he says the
Pythagorean doctrine can be understood as a proto-Christian belief in Purgatory, a
reading which resembles Bessarion’s view as described above, p. 259. A parallel instance
of appeal to the Degrees of Truth principle to protect Plato is found in the Lysis epitome,
wher^ the “ absurdity” of Socrates’ saying the Good does not love is ascribed to
Empedocles and Heraclitus (O p ., p. 1273): “ Item, cum secundo obiicitur Bonus seipso
sufficft, ergo non desiderat alterum, unde non amat, quare nec boni amicus, exponen-
dum est quod haec absurditas non ex Platonis mente sequitur, sed ex Empedoclis et
Heracliti dictis, in quibus amoris desiderium ab amicitia non distinguunt, quare una cum
amiciitia cupiditas perpetua sit necesse est.”
 C O N C L U S IO N 361

philosophical foundation of C atholic theology. A nd there was no real

disagreem ent in the fifteenth century as to the qualities which m ade a
C O N C L U S IO N w riter an authority. P artisans and critics, patrons and proteges all agreed
th at an au th o r ought to be eloquent, virtuous, learned and, as far as
To mind the inside of a book is to entertain one’s possible, orthodox. H ence the text of Plato, som etim es consciously,
self with the forced product of another man’s som etim es unconsciously, was transform ed by his early hum anist in ter­
brain. Now I think a man of quality and breeding preters into a walled garden, protected from its enem ies w ithout, full of
may be much amused with the natural sprouts of edifying delights for those who abode w ithin. T h ro u g h careful selection,
his own.
bow dlerization, fram ing and glossing the Platonic dialogues were m ade
— Lord Foppington, in “ The Relapse’’ a place of healthy resort for R enaissance C hristians. Some hum anists
w ent still fu rth er than this, and sallied forth openly against the enem ies
T he story ju st told of the revival of Plato in the fifteenth century may of their hero. In M ilan, Pier C andido D ecem brio and A ntonio da Rho
seem to the reader, in the end, to resem ble one of those G eorge Eliot defended P lato ’s authority by attacking his patristic critics, Je ro m e and
novel}; in which the earnest young heroine, half in love already with some L actan tiu s, and even attem pted to lim it the use of religious au thority as
ideally wise and noble h u sb an d , m arries him only to find his real ch arac­ such in settling questions of historical fact.
ter arid views to be quite different from those she had in im agination a t­ Such defenses, how ever, could not long rem ain effective. As
tribu ted to him . She tries at first to save the bright im age by preten d in g know ledge of G reek and H ellenic antiquity spread, as m ore of the an ­
he is better than he is, but her m ind at last is either m atu red and cient antiplatonic tradition was exposed to view, the task of m aintaining
strengthened by rejecting her h u sb a n d ’s inferior values or insensibly cor­ P la to ’s au th o rity becam e progressively m ore difficult. At the same tim e,
rupted through constant association with them . O th e r m odern accounts m en such as C u sanus, Bessarion and Ficino were eager to reform C h ris­
of the Platonic revival, it m ight be said, give us som ething rath er m ore tian theology by revitalizing the N eoplatonic-D ionysian tradition of
like J a n e A usten. T h ey tell us w hat the h u m anists found attractive in m etaphysics. T rad itio n al A ristotelian school philosophy had led only to
P la to r-th e charm s of the h usband, the eagerness of the b rid e— , b ut they rivalry, division, irrelevance, intellectual narrow ness, and secularism
ab and o n the rom ance at the m om ent w hen the w edding bells ring out. (or, as contem poraries would have said, “ im p iety ” ); Platonism would
In this book I have tried to describe not only the heady days of courtship, b rin g peace and unity by soaring above the petty disputes of the
but the soberer years of m arriage and responsibility; those long years scholastics and by re tu rn in g C hristian theology to its ancient roots. Plato
when the h um anists had not only to praise Plato, but to read him , u n d e r­ him self, as the fountainhead of this tradition, had thus to be raised high
stand him , and defend him against his enem ies. u p o n the sum m it of wisdom and virtue. An attack such as that m ounted
For Plato did have his enem ies, the chief of w hom (from a fifteenth by G eorge of T reb izo n d and his allies, and later by Savonarola, in
century point of view) was himself. It was Plato him self who defaced his defense of C h ristian A ristotelianism , had to be m et by m ore powerful
works with heresy and im m orality; P lato him self who defeated expecta­ defenses th an the early hum anists had m anaged to devise. Fortunately
tions by em ploying a style of philosophizing nearly useless in the R en ais­ Bessarion had inherited from antiquity itself a tradition ot exegesis which
sance classroom . W hen certain hum an ists w ould have m ade him into the m et his needs adm irably. T h e ancient N eoplatonic com m entators had
symbpl of the benefits conferred by the new literary culture, defenders regarded Plato as the greatest theologian of paganism and so had th em ­
of the older clerical cultu re fell upon P la to ’s shortcom ings with glee. selves been eager to deify him and to transform his w ritings into som e­
Some h u m an ist readers were indifferent to censures of this kind, b ut for th ing approaching holy scriptures. W hile neither Bessarion nor Ficino
the gifeat m ajority P lato was too im p o rtan t an ally to be aban d o n ed to was prep ared to go to such lengths in order to vindicate Plato against his
the enem y w ithout a struggle. Yet this struggle did not take the form of critics, they were happy to use the authority of the ancient com m entators
defending som ething called “ P lato n ism ” against the rival values of and th eir techniques of exegesis to show that P lato’s contem porary critics
C hristian trad itio n . T h e great questions for P la to ’s defenders and critics were guilty of vulgar m isunderstandings of the dialogues.
alike were, first, w hether Plato was suitable reading for voung C h ris­ F icino’s in terp retatio n , especially, proved lar m ore ellective as an
tians, and second, w hether Plato could replace A ristotle as the apologetic w eapon than any set of techniques the early hum anists had
362 CO NCLUSIO N C O N C L U S IO N 363

been able to em ploy, and it achieved m uch m ore th an the uneasy truce preem ptively to disguise the cultural distance between ancient Greece
betw een C h ristian values and Platonic thought that Bessarion had ac- and R enaissance Italy. R enaissance translators aim ed to produce edify­
conjiplished. Instead of' fighting on the g ro u n d of his adversaries with ing yet elegant works of literary art, to be perused by gentlem anly
strange w eapons, Ficino erected a nearly im pregnable series of fortifica­ am ateu rs in their m om ents of leisure. U nlike most m edieval translators,
tions on territories he had won for his own followers. H e had, in effect they were not interested in producing an exact replica of scientific
created a new Platonic “ m e n ta lity ” which challenged im plicitly the treatises for the use of a professional audience. W ith such aim s and
cultural hegem ony of the inherited trad itio n s of C h ristendom . T his is, m ethods, the tendency to m ute or excise w hatever a translator found
one suspects, a com m on enough phen o m en o n in cultural history. T he strange and unsightly in a G reek au th o r is readily understandable; like
students of Aristotle in the th irteen th cen tu ry followed sim ilar paths, L eonardo B runi, the tran slato r could com fort him self that by rem oving
creating in the end the new proto-secularist m entality of A verroism such m inor stum bling blocks he was serving the a u th o r’s own larger
which tried to stand ap art from trad itio n w ithout directly challenging it. m oral and pedagogical purposes.
T h e same m ight be said of the secularism a tten d an t upon the early T h e habits and assum ptions of w hat I have called “ d o ctrin al” and
h u m an ists’ recovery of the ancient civic and rhetorical traditions. Rejec­ “ m eth o d ic” reading seem also to have served to distract attention from
tion, eclecticism, h arm o n izatio n , alienation: these are perhaps norm al the unassim ilable elem ents in the dialogues. D octrinal reading p re­
m om ents in the process of cross-cultural fertilization. F icino’s own sum ed that an au th o r was in possession of the tru th and offered good
Platonism hovers on the cusp betw een the last two m om ents. Like most m odels for behavior. A lthough R enaissance hum anists were aw are that
of the m en of his age, he believes firm ly in the central doctrines of C h ris­ the classical w riters had occasionally deviated from the highest stan­
tianity. But like m any of them , he longs to ap p ro p riate and em ulate the dard s, the norm al exegetical response to ap p aren t falsehood or im ­
wisdom of the ancients. T h e result is a tertium quid, a new C hristian m orality was to explain it away using some one of the m yriad
Platonic m entality, which, while form ally ad h erin g to C hristian doctrine, techniques developed by schoolm asters over the centuries for cir­
undercuts ecclesiastical discipline an d unity; it is a religio in religione. T he cum v en tin g the obvious. M oreover, doctrinal and m ethodic reading
irony is that a philosophy so devoted to concordism should end, in the alike were chiefly designed to help the reader im prove his own w riting.
sixteenth century, by alienating its S p iritualist adherents from Catholic T h e read er was expected above all to acquire a stock of' exempla and dicta
unity. T h u s, w hatever his in ten tio n , F icin o’s revival of C hristian for illustrating his own speech, and to observe the devices an author
Platonism cam e in the end to form — along with H erm etism , Rosicru- used to render his own discourse pleasing and effective. O ne looks in
cianism , M esm erism , and a host of o th ers— one of those sunken Atlan- vain to fifteenth century hum anists for the kind of logical and textual
tises of the m ind betw een the old w orld of traditional C hristian society analyses usually m et with in m odern Platonic scholarship. T here is little
and new world of the E nlightenm ent. or no attem p t to reconstruct P la to ’s position or argum ents on a given
question, little or no attem p t to fathom the coherence and philosophical
* * *
econom y of his doctrines, little or no attem pt to read the dialogues his­
T h e foregoing account, how ever, gives us only a partial answ er to the torically, as the best evidence for what Plato thought. In m arked con­
question which launched this enquiry: how the revival of Plato was made trast with fifteenth-century students of A ristotle, hum anist readers of
possible by new readings of the dialogues that were at once herm eneutical­ Plato m ade little effort to find and resolve problem s of interpretation or
ly plausible and m orally acceptable to the fifteenth century. O vert ex- to isolate positiones. Even w hen challenged by the antiplatonic tradition,
egejical strategies are, to be sure, an im p o rtan t p art of the answ er, but still hu m an ist in terpreters preferred evasion, denial or counterattack to
m ore im portant is the context of herm eneutical aim s, practices, and serious, critical attem pts to find out what Plato had m eant. T his was
assum ptions in which those strategies were em bedded. We have touched so, it w ould seem , precisely because there was little pedagogical or
at various points in o u r discussion upon this w ider context, so it may be institutional interest in the fruits of this form of interpretation; the skills
useful here to present a vue ensemble of some of the conditions governing necessary to a critical reconstruction of the original m eaning in the o ri­
the reading and interp retatio n of P la to ’s dialogues in the Q uattrocento. ginal context were simply not a part of contem porary herm eneutical
T o begin with the m ost obvious point, it is clear that the near-universal techniques. T h e result was that it was particularly difficult in the fif­
use o f ad sensurn translation by fifteenth-century students of Plato did much teenth century to see Plato in the round, as an au th o r whose beliefs
364 C O NC LUSIO N C O N C L U S IO N 365

were internally consistent and plainly distinct from the beliefs required T h e fam ous exam ples of R enaissance criticism — V alla’s dism em bering
of R enaissance C hristians. of the D onation of C o n stantine, P oliziano’s criticism ot the textus receptus
W ith Bessarion and Ficino, it is tru e, we reach a m uch more of the Ju stin ia n C ode, E rasm u s’ Biblical scholarship— were all ot them
sophisticated level of analysis. Both exegetes give us subtle and com ­ hardly m ore than isolated acts of virtuosity. T h ey were not expressions
prehensive treatm en ts of m any of P la to ’s doctrines; both exegetes express of a culture of criticism . T h e aim of most scholarship was not to establish
a distinct and coherent view of P latonic philosophy. Still, both Ficino and the original m eaning of the au th o r or the tacticity ot accounts. T h ere was
Bessarion are very far from a critical reconstruction of Platonic philoso­ no collective organization of the scholarly com m unity, no jo u rn als, no in ­
phy in its historical context. T h e N eoplatonic m ethods and assum ptions stitutes, no research program s. T h ere was little sense ot positivistic p ro ­
they em ployed m ade it far too easy to flv aw ay from the littera at the First gress, no sense of a bo rd er betw een the known facts and the unknow n,
hint of strangeness or difficulty. A ssum ing as it did that the text was but no credit for discoveries and few sanctions tor u n tru th . Scholars had yet
an ijntcgumcnt for deeper theological tru th s, and providing powerful to learn to postpone gratification: to content them selves with partial solu­
allegorical tools to recover those tru th s, the N eoplatonic in terpretation of tions, “ co n trib u tio n s” to a Universalgeschichte which one day, perhaps,
Plato, also, discouraged readers from perceiving foreign beliefs and would give future generations a critical yet holistic u n d erstan d in g ot their
values as the products of cultural differences. A nd as both Bessarion and place in history. R enaissance hum anists still, overw helm ingly, chose to
Ficipo began with the conviction th at C h ristian ity was true and that take their historical truths from traditional authorities rath er than relying
Platonic m etaphysics was a n ear ap p ro x im atio n of C hristian theology, it on wissenschaftlichen Methoden. Like most m en before and after them , they
was inevitable that a large elem ent of the apriori should m ake its V av into preferred edifying m yths to the m oral paralysis ot the scientific and
theif exegesis. critical m ind.
These observations prom pt one to inquire how far the vaunted textual Indeed, it is clear that even the best R enaissance critics lack elem ents
and source criticism supposedly invented by fifteenth-century hum anists in their herm eneutical attitudes that are necessary to any fully-developed
co n trib u ted to a m ore historical u n d e rsta n d in g of P la to ’s thought. M ost historical consciousness. No critic of the Early or H igh R enaissance
R enaissance historians today are convinced that the hum anists of the Fif­ periods is fully aw are of a distinction and possible conflict betw een fact
teenth centu ry , especially V alla and Poliziano, were led by their practice and value; betw een w hat we w ant and ought to believe, and w hat is in
ot (reconstructing ancient L atinity to recognize the historicity of fact the c a su No herm eneutical m ethod has yet been discovered of suffi­
language; they believe that the general desire to revive ancient culture cient pow er to destabilize radically the historical m yths that constitute the
b ro u g h t about alm ost m odern aw areness of periodicity and historical self-consciousness of R enaissance culture. T h ere is little sense that
distance. But the m odernity o f the R enaissance in this respect is surely historical criticism m ight be used to construct a coherent and self-
o v e rsta te d . 1 Italian hum an ism did b rin g into prom inence certain cultural consistent past radically distinct from the present. A nd it is not until the
practices that co n trib u ted , in the very long ru n , to a true historical con­ controversies of the C o u n ter-R efo rm atio n that scholars begin to elevate
sciousness. A ncient and m edieval scholars, too, for that m atter, the principle of verification above all o th er considerations— m oral,
em ployed from tim e to tim e certain critical practices tending to draw a t­ religious, and u tilita ria n — in the establishm ent of historical tru th . In the
tention to historical changes in the relationship between discourse and fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the holistic and m ythic m entality of
reference. Yet from the actual practice of Fifteenth century hum anists trad itional E uropean culture rem ains largely unb ro k en . T h e m entality
w hep confronted with a specific set of texts— the dialogues of P lato— we that not only tolerates but approves of edifying Falschungen, travellers’
can see how m uch rem ained to be done in o rd er to create true tales and sain ts’ lives flourishes precisely because the techniques of
Histpnsrnus— to effect that revolution of consciousness which M einecke falsification rem ain unsophisticated and outside norm al educational
believed to be as im p o rtan t for intellectual life as the French R evolution routines and institutional practices.
was tor political life. It is in this context that we can u n derstand the perverse and fantastical­
Ftjir R enaissance herm eneutics, like m edieval herm eneutics, was ly self-indulgent readings of the Platonic dialogues created by R enais­
orien tated overw helm ingly to the tasks of edification, not of criticism . sance exegetes such as T reb izo n d and Ficino. Such readings were
believable not only because of the ru d im en tary state ot historical and
1 I owe tlu-sv observations to Prof. Anthonv Grafton. critical m ethods, but also because contem porary herm eneutics recog-
366 CONCLUSION

nized certain considerations external to the textual evidence as relevant Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition publishes* monographs by members of the
to establishing its m eaning. A culture which assum es its authorities to be Columbia University faculty and by former Columbia students. Its subjects are the
following: Greek and Latin literature, ancient philosophy, Greek and Roman history,
wise and good does not readily accept readings w hich w ould contradict classical archaeology, and the classical tradition in its medieval, Renaissance and modern
that assum ption. A culture which assum es its au thorities to be useful does manifestations.
not readily accept in terp retatio n s w hich situate them in an unusable The following books have been published in the series:
historical past. By the sam e token an in te rp reter who uses authorities I. Monfasani, John: George of Trebizond: a Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic
naively to b u ttress his own cosm ological, religious an d m oral beliefs is (1976)
II. Coulter, James A.: The Literary Microcosm: Theories of Interpretation of the Later
not easily seen to be doing som ething unhistorical; historicity, indeed, is Neoplatonists (1976)
harcjly perceived as a criterion for a successful reading. A successful III. Riginos, Alice Swift: Platonica. The Anecdotes concerning the Life and Writings of Plato
reading, above all, was one that did readers good. W h eth er one regarded (1976)
IV. Bagnall, Roger S.: The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt (1976)
Plato as the A ntichrist, with T reb izo n d , or as the Attic M oses, with V. Keuls, Eva C.: Plato and Greek Painting (1978)
Ficipo, depended on T re b iz o n d ’s and F icino’s success in show ing the VI. Schein, Seth L.: The Iambic Trimeter in Aeschylus and Sophocles: A Study in Metrical
m align or beneficial effects of read in g the dialogues. Form (1980)
VII. O ’Sullivan, Thomas D. : The De Excidio of Gildas: Its Authenticity and Date (1978)
T^iere was a tim e in the n o t-too-distant past when an historian m ight VIII. Cohen, Shaye J. D.: Josephus m Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a
end such an account of prem o d ern h erm eneutical practice on a note of Historian (1979)
self-congratulation, praising n in eteen th -cen tu ry historical scholarship for IX. Taran, Sonya Lida: The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram (1979)
X. Cameron, Averil &Herrin, Judith (Eds.): Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century:
open in g up paths of light through the obscure wood of m yth and forget­ the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai. Introduction, Translation and Commentary (1984)
fulness. T h e historian w riting at the end of the tw entieth century, how­ XI. Bruno, Vincent J.: Hellenistic Painting Techniques: the Evidence of the Delos Fragments
ever, m ust strike a different attitu d e. T h e disciplines of literary and (1985)
XII. Wood, Susan: Roman Portrait Sculpture, 2 1 7 -2 6 0 A. D The Transformation of an A r­
histprical scholarship have com e increasingly u n d e r attack in recent tistic Tradition (1986)
decades as w orthless and invalid. L arge territories of literary study (as XIII. Bagnall, Roger S. & Harris, William V. (Eds.): Studies in Roman Law in Memory
U m b erto Eco and others have pointed out) have been conquered by neo- of A. Arthur Schiller (1986)
XIV. Sacks, Richard: The Traditional Phrase in Homer. Two Studies in Form, Meaning and
m edieval styles o f reading which are indifferent to the historical m eaning Interpretation (1987)
of the text. T h e neo-pragm atist strain in m odern thought urges XV. Brow:,, Robert D.: Lucretius on Love and Sex. A Commentary on De Rerum Natura IV,
philosophers to ab an d o n undem ocratic, “ fo u n d atio n alist” truth-claim s 1 0 30-1287 with Prolegomena, Text and Translation (1987)
XVI. Knox, Dilwyn: Ironia. Medieval and Renaissance Ideas on Irony (1989)
and engage instead in edifying discourse. It is not, perhaps, the role ot
an h istorian to deb ate such m atters. But if it is not im p ro p er for the scien­
tist to rem ind L uddites of w hat it was like to live in a w orld w ithout
science, the historian too m ay properly rem ind others w hat W estern in­
tellectual life was like before the em ergence of critical history. A nd do
those who attack historical scholarship really w ant to repopulate the
historical im agination with T ro ja n or A ryan ancestors, Plermes
Trigm egistus, the D onation of C o n stan tin e and the m iracles ol St.
C hristo p h er? Do they really w ant to ren d er p erm an en t and unassailable
the gtill m ore ab su rd and noxious m yths that m ultiply yearly in m odern
cultu ral an d political life?
 COLUMBIA STUDIES PLATO IN THE
IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE
CLASSICAL TRADITION
under the direction of BY

W IL L IA M V . H A R R IS (E ditor) • P A U L O S K A R K R IS T E L L E R
E U G E N E F. R IC E , J R . • A L A N C A M E R O N
JA M E S A. C O U L T E R • R IC H A R D B R IL L IA N T JAMES HANKINS
G IS E L A S T R IK E R

V O L U M E X V II, 2

E.J. BRILL
L E ID E N • N E W Y O R K • K 0 B E N H A V N • K O L N
1990
The publication of this work was aided by the Stanwood Cockey Lodge Foundation CONTENTS

V O L U M E II

Preface to V olum e I I .................................................................................... ix

P ar t I: A p p e n d ic e s

1 . T h e D ates of Ep. 1.1 [1.8], the L atin Phaedo, the Dialogi ad

Petrum Histrum and Som e O th er E arly W orks of L eonardo
KObKilDh B r u n i .......................................................................................................... 367
U N iVER SiTETSSiSLIO TEK
2. T h e D ates of B ru n i’s T w o R edactions of the Crito and Apology,
and of H is V ersions of the Gorgias, Phaedrus and Epistolae__ 379

3. B ru n i’s T ran slatio n s of P l a t o .......................................................... 388

A. T h e Phaedo........................................................................................ 388
B. T h e Gorgias ...................................................................................... 394
C. The Phaedrus..................................................................................... 396
D. T he Symposium................................................................................ 399

L ib ra r y of C ongress C a ta lo g in g -in -P u b lica tio n D ata 4. T h e T ran slatio n s of the Euthyphro by R inuccio A retino and
Francesco F ilelfo .................................................................................... 401
Hankins, James.
Plato in the Italian Renaissance/by James Hankins.
p., cm. — (Columbia studies in the classical tradi­ 5. T h e D ates of Filelfo’s T ran slatio n s of P la to .................................. 404
tion, ISSN 0166-1302: V. 17)
ISBN 9004091637 (set). — ISBN 9004091610 (v. 1). —
ISBN 9004091629 (v. 2)
6 . Agostino D a ti’s V ersion of the Pseudo-Platonic Halcyon and
1. Plato— Influence. 2. Renaissance—Italy. 3. Italy— R enaissance Skepticism ....................................................................... 408
Intellectual life— 1268-1559. I. Title. II. Series.
B395.H28 1990
184—dc20 89-70823
7. U b erto and P ier C an d id o D ecem b rio ’s Notabilia to T h e ir
CIP T ran slatio n s of the Republic ............................................................... 412

ISSN 0166-1302
8 . D ecem b rio ’s Platonic S tu d ie s ............................................................ 415
I S B N /90 04 09163 7 set A. H is Supposed T ran slatio n of the Sophist................................ 415
90 04 09161 0 vol. II B. H is T reatise De immortalitate....................................................... 417
C . H is Bow dlerized V ersion of the L y s is ...................................... 418
© Copyright 1990 by The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
D . M iscellan ea....................................................................................... 420
A ll rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or
translated in any Jorm, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche
or any other means without written permission from the publisher
9. F our Q u attro cen to T ran slato rs of Republic V................................ 422

P RI NTED IN T H E NET HER L ANDS

VI CONTENTS contents v ii

10. C assarin o ’s M an u scrip ts of P la to .................................................... 427 E. B io-bibliographical N ote on Sixteenth-C entury T ra n sla to rs... 804
F. T a b u la In itio ru m .................................................................................... 808
11 . George of T re b iz o n d ’s V ersions of the Laws and the Parmenides 429 G . Indices ....................................................................................................... 816
1. Index of D ia lo g u e s.......................................................................... 816
12. P letho’s Influence in the L ater Q u a ttro c e n to ............................. 436 2. Index of T ra n s la to rs ....................................................................... 819
3. Index of Scribes, A nnotators and D ecorators of M a n u ­
13. B essarion’s D ebt to Proclus in Book II of the Calumniator__ 441 scripts ................................................................................................... 822
4. Index of O w ners or V endors of M a n u sc rip ts........................ 824
14. T he “ A ncient T h eo lo g y ’’ of A ristotle A ccording to G eorge of 5. Index of D ated and D atable M a n u s c rip ts .............................. 826
T reb izo n d ................................................................................................. 445 6 . L ibri an notati .................................................................................... 827
7. Index of Printers and Publishers ................................................. 827
15. Poliziano’s F rag m en tary T ra n sla tio n of the Charmides............ 449
Index of M anuscripts N ot Listed in C at. A ....................................... 830
16. Ficino’s “ S piritual C risis’’ ................................................................ 454
Index of N am es ............................................................................................. 833
17. T he D evelopm ent of F icin o ’s “ A ncient T h eology” ................. 459
A ddenda 845
18^ O n the T ex tu al H isto ry of F icin o ’s Platonis opera omnia........... 464
A. D ependence on E arlier T ran slatio n s ........................................ 464
B. L ater R e v isio n s................................................................................ 477

19. T he D ates of F icin o ’s A rg u m en ts and C o m m e n ta rie s............ 482

20. Lorenzo L ip p i’s T ra n sla tio n of the Io n .......................................... 485

P art II: T exts

Conspectus scrip to ru m P latonis in terp retatio n em saec. X V

illu stra n tiu m ..................................................................................................... 491
Leonardus Aretinus—Cincius Romanus—Rinucius Aretinus—Francis-
cus Philelphus—Augustinus Datus—Manuel Chrysoloras et Ubertus
Dedembrius—Petrus Candidus Decembrius—Antonius Cassarinus—
Georgius Trapezuntius—Laurentius Lippius Collensis—Angelus Politia-
nus<—Marsilius Ficinus.

P ar t III: C atalogs

A. C ensus of M a n u s c rip ts .......................................................................... 669

B. C ensus of P rin ted E d itio n s.................................................................. 738
S purious I m p r in ts ................................................................................... 796
C . E x tra c ts ....................................................................................................... 797
D. P erdita, D u b ia, S p u ria .......................................................................... 802
 P R E F A C E T O V O L U M E II

T h is volum e is m eant to serve several purposes. In the first volum e I

have som etim es, w ithout arg u m en t, taken positions and assum ed facts
which are either controversial or unsu p p o rted by secondary authorities;
in the A ppendix section of the present volum e I give the evidence and
arg um ents by which I was led to adopt those positions. T h e re I also give
such fu rth er inform ation about the study of Plato in the fifteenth century
as I was unable conveniently to incorporate into the m onographic portion
of the study.
In the second section of the present volum e I give a kind of catalogue
raisonne of prefaces, dedications, letters, arg um ents, and other texts il­
lustratin g Plato translation of the fifteenth century. W ithin this catalogue
I edit thirty-eight hitherto unpublished texts, and reedit fifteen texts p u b ­
lished only in early printed books, some of them rarissimi. I have also
reedited six prefaces previously edited by other scholars because I be­
lieved for one reason or an o th er that I could m ake significant im ­
provem ents to their texts or apparatus.
T h e third section of the present volum e form s part of a larger project
w hich aim s to survey the m anuscript and p rin ted sources for the R enais­
sance study of Plato. At present I plan at least one additional volum e on
the study of the Platonic dialogues in the sixteenth century, an article on
Plato for the Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, and a supplem ent
to N . G . W ilson’s list of (G reek) Plato m an u scrip ts . 1 T h e present volum e
contains two census listing, in principle, all m anuscripts and printed edi­
tions which contain L atin versions of Plato translated betw een 1400 and
1600. T his m ay ap p ear to overlap with the projected article in the CTC,
b u t the design of the Catalogus perm its only a list of shelfm arks, w hereas
I have thought it w orthw hile in the present volum e to provide a m ore d e­
tailed description of the m anuscripts and early printings, m any of which
are undescribed in any p rin ted catalog. T h e eventual Catalogus article will
provide a descriptive and bibliographical survey of all L atin translations
I and com m entaries (including glossary com m entaries and libri annotati) on
Plato w ritten betw een ad 600 and 1600. T h e projected additional volum e
of this study will contain fu rth er appendices listing (a) im prints of P la to ’s
works in G reek ab inventione artis to 1600, (b) vern acu lar translations of
Plato m ade betw een 1400 and 1600, and (c) treatises, sum m aries, and
sim ilar item s w ritten betw een 1400 and 1600 that deal with the Platonic

Scriptorium 16 (1962): 386-395.

X PREFACE

dialogues. T his plan has the u n fo rtu n a te consequence th at the two census
given in the present volum e list tran slatio n s which are discussed now here
in V olum e I. T h e alternatives were to delay publication of the two census
to anoth er volum e or to divide the census up so as to treat fifteenth and
sixteenth centu ry translations separately; both alternatives w ould have
caused considerable nuisance both to the read er and to m e. I have tried
to rem edy this unsatisfactory situ atio n som ew hat by supplying, in C at.
E, a brief bio-bibliographical note on the sixteenth cen tu ry translators.

PA RT I

A P P E N D IC E S
 A PPE N D IX 1

T H E D A T E S O F EP. 1.1 [1.8], T H E L A T IN PH AED O ,

T H E D IA L O G I A D P E T R U M H IS T R U M
AND SOM E O T H E R EARLY W O RK S O F LEO N A R D O BRU N I

Itur in antiquam silvam. V irg il’s w ords come irresistibly to m ind w hen one
contem plates the enorm ous am o u n t of scholarly com m entary that has
since 1741 been expended on the dating of B ru n i’s early works, p artic u ­
larly the Laudatio, Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum, Ep. 1.8, and his translation
of the Phaedo. O u r chief concern here will be to date the two latter works
as precisely as present inform ation will allow, b ut it is clear from
historiographical experience that one m ust treat all B ru n i’s early works
together if a plausible solution is to be achieved to any of the num erous
chronological puzzles they present.
W e begin a notion w ith B ru n i’s version of the Phaedo. Since the work
is dedicated to Pope Inn o cen t V II, one m ay place the dedication, at least,
som etim e d u rin g his reign, that is, betw een 17 O cto b er 1404 and
N ovem ber of 1406; and alm ost certainly after M arch of 1405, the date
of B ru n i’s arrival in R om e. It is, indeed, usually supposed that M arch,
1405, is precisely the date w hen B runi presented the tran slatio n to In n o ­
ce n t , 1 but there are certain obstacles to accepting this hypothesis.
T h e hypothesis rests on three considerations. T h e First and best is a
m anuscript copied by B ernardo Bem bo in 1454 which contains this note
in his hand: “ A nno 1404 opus hoc a L eonardo editum est et Innocentio
d ic a tu m . ” 2 T h e second point is that B runi in his preface seem s to speak
of Innocent as having been pope only “ paucis m en sib u s’’. T h e third con­
sideration is the belief th at the likeliest tim e for B runi to have dedicated
the w ork to In n o cen t was im m ediately upon his arrival in R om e w hen
he was seeking em ploym ent in the C uria.
N one of these considerations, how ever, supplies us w ith any certain
proof. It is un clear from B em bo’s note w hether 1404 is the date of dedica­
tion as well as of publication, nor is it know n w hether the 1404 date
follows F lorentine style (year beginning 25 M arch) o r V enetian (1
M arch) or som e o ther style. If one considers the context of the “ paucis

1 Bruni, Schriften, p. 161, relying on Luiso, “ Commento a una lettera di L. Bruni e

cronologia di alcune sue opere,” in Raccolta di studi cntici dedicala ad Alessandro d ’Ancona
(Florence, 1901), pp. 85-95: 87f.
2 Turin, BN E VI 10 (797), front fly-leaf = Cat. A, no. 283; cited by Luiso, “ Com­
mento” , pp. 93-94, note 7.
368 PART I A PPENDICES 369

m ensibus” in B ru n i’s preface, it is clear that one is very probably dealing Pavia, who had the gatherings in his possession, m ight set the price suo
with a case of rhetorical exaggeration: B runi credits In n ocent with arbitratu and sell them .
having revived “ in a few m o n th s” things which have not been revived T his letter, it seems, inform s us about the p rep aratio n of Innocent
in the C hurch “ for m any y e a rs” ; the “ few m o n th s” in any case do not V I I ’s dedication copy of B ru n i’s Latin Phaedo. W e know that Bruni
refer directly to the d u ratio n of In n o c e n t’s reign, b u t to the tim e needed began his version of the Phaedo while still in Florence, certainly by
to accom plish his reform s as com pared w ith those of previous pontiffs . 3 S eptem ber of 1404 an d possibly as early as S eptem ber 1403.7 T h e letter
Finally, though it is possible that B runi knew Innocent w ould willingly to Niccoii suggests that B runi had left the com pleted translation behind
accept the dedication of the Phaedo alm ost at the very m om ent of his a r­ in Florence before leaving for R om e in M arch. H e had entrusted the
rival, one can im agine equally strong arg u m en ts against such a supposi­ m aking of a deluxe copy (as he often did) to Niccoli, who had in turn
tion, and it is surp risin g th at we hear no th in g of the m a tte r in the two given the quin tern io n s to the m iniaturist Sebastiano d a Pisa to decorate.
long letters B runi w rote to S alutati describing his reception by the pontiff S ebastiano, we know , was a m iniaturist em ployed by Niccoli and Bruni
and his successful com petition for the post of papal secretary . 4 on other occasions w hen sum ptuous decoration w as.called for . 8 T h e re­
A gainst the date of M arch 1405 one m ust cite the evidence of B ru n i’s quest for the De immortalitate animae cannot refer to B ru n i’s Greek
letter of 12 O cto b er 1405 (1 .10). T h e letter was w ritten from V iterbo, m a n u sc rip t , 9 and it is unlikely that B runi would have had to send to
w hither the papal curia had fled on 8 A ugust of the sam e year, to rem ain Florence for a w ork he had recently dedicated to the pope. N or is it likely
there until the following M arch . In an earlier letter (1.8), w ritten from that B runi was m erely requesting another copy for his private use, since
V iterbo in A ugust, B runi had com plained to S alutati th at he had no that w ould not req u ire elaborate decoration, and in any case Bruni clear­
books with him and so was unable to answ er accurately som e questions ly had other projects in view at that time. T h e fact that three years later
Salutati had put to him . D u rin g the last week in A ugust he had been B runi had to send Niccoli an o th er copy of the w ork, there being no copy
taken with a fever w hich had lasted tw enty days and had im peded any at that tim e in Florence, suggests that S eb astiano’s copy was the only one
possibility of w o rk . 5 By 12 O ctober, how ever, B runi was ready to resum e in existence in O cto b er of 1405 besides B ru n i’s own ex em p lar . 10* It is
his studies, and w rote to Niccoli asking him to have his G reek and L atin probable, then, that B runi presented to Innocent V II som etim e soon
books forw arded by a trustw orthy m essenger. (From this request we m ay after 12 O cto b er 1405 a dedication copy decorated by Sebastiano da Pisa.
infer that B runi had been deprived of his books from the tim e of his T h e inferences m ade on the basis of Ep. 1.10 help us interpret B em bo’s
d epartu re from Florence, and not sim ply from the beg in n in g of his stay note in the T u rin m anuscript. It is likely that B em bo’s inform ation
in V iterbo.) B runi told Niccoli that he planned to begin im m ediately (his
vigiliis) on a tran slatio n of P to lem y ’s Geography, and at the sam e tim e he 7 See below, p. 371, where I argue for the former date.
inform ed Niccoli that he had not yet had the o p p o rtu n ity to polish for 3 See, for instance, Bruni’s letter to Niccoli of 8 October 1407 (II. 12) in which he sends
Niccoli Bartolomeo Capra’s copy of the Venines, explaining that Capra “ cupit ut capita
publication his translation of P lu ta rc h ’s Vita Catonis, of which he had cuiuscunque libri splendore litterarum ornentur atque ea de causa Florentiam transmittit
m ade an unsatisfactory redaction while still in F lorence . 6 H e then begged diligentie tue et artificio Sebastiani nostri...” . Capra was an apostolic secretary and the
Niccoli forcefully (vehementer obsecro) to send him P la to ’s De immortalitate bishop of Cremona, later archbishop of Milan. See also Sabbadini, Stona e cntica di lesti
latini (Padua, 1971), p. 40.
animae as quickly as possible, and adds th at the m in iatu rist Sebastiano da 9 The reference is unlikely to be to Bruni’s Greek manuscript of the Phaedo (a) because
there is no evidence that Sebastiano was ever associated with the writing or decoration
of Greek manuscripts, and (b) in Bruni’s copy of the Phaedo in Greek, there is no decora­
3 Schnften, 3: “ Nec multis annis in ecclesiam dei reduci posse credebantur, quae a te tion except gilded titles in the hand of the copyist (Cologny-Geneva, Bibliotheca
infra paucos menses summa cum prudentia videmus reducta.” Bodmeriana MS 136, autograph of Bruni; see E. Berti, “ La traduzione di Leonardo
* Ep. 1.3-4. Poggio tells us in his funeral oration on Bruni (Mehus 1:CXX) that Bruni Bruni del Fedone di Platone ed un codice greco della Bibliotheca Bodmeriana,’’ Museum
quickly won Innocent’s favor after his virtue and eloquence had been proven: “ pauloque Helveticum 35 [1978], 125-148). The manuscript in fact contains five dialogues, so it is
post meorum opera secretarius effectus, ostendit vera esse, quae a me de eo ferebantur; unlikely that Bruni would simply refer to it as the Liber de immortalitate animae. But De im­
brevique se in Pontificis qui humanissimus erat benivolentiam insinuans illi accep- mortalitate animae, an ancient subtitle, was Bruni’s usual name for his Latin version of the
tissimus fuit.” This access of favor, however, seems not to have been instantaneous, for Phaedo\ see the preface to Innocent (above, vol. 1, p. 50 and note).
in August of 1405 Salutati was obliged to write for Bruni a testimonial letter to Innocent 10 See the passage of letter III.3 (17 Sept. 1408; Bruni to Niccoli) restored by Luiso,
VII; see Novati, 4:105-109). p. 55: “ Librum De immortalitate ammi mittam cum primum ad manus meas ex com-
5 See the letter to Salutati dated 13 September, [1405] in Bertalot, Studien, 2: 417-419. modato redierit; quamquam nescio equidem cur laborem deinceps in transferendo
” See below, p. 374. For Bruni’s lack of books in Rome, see also Luiso, p. 9. suscipiamus, si tarn luculentum opus nullum adhuc apud vos peperit exemplum.”
 370 PART I
A PPEN D IC ES 371

comles from P o g g io o r his son Ja c o p o , and is therefore reliable . 11 If B ru n i’s in D ecem ber of 1401.15 O n the o ther h an d , the letter cannot be later th an
Phaedo was dedicated and published only after O cto b er 1405, the phrase S eptem ber 1405, for S alutati, who is m entioned as alive in the letter, died
“ A nno 1404 opus hoc a L eonardo ed itu m e s t” m ust m ean that the w ork on 4 M ay 1406. 5 S eptem ber 1405 can also be elim inated, since we know
was composed in 1404,12 w hich in F lorentine d atin g m eans betw een 25 from o th er letters that on th at date B runi was in V iterbo, too sick to work
M arch 1404 and 24 M arch 1405. an d deprived of books, w hereas on the S eptem ber 5 depicted in Ep. 1.1
W ith these conclusions in m in d , we can now tu rn to the fam ous Ep. 1.1, he w rites “ ex villa L en zan ich i” , is w orking h ard at his Phaedo version, and
in which B runi discusses the final a rra n g e m en ts for the publication of his has access to S a lu ta ti’s books . 16
Laudatio Florentinae urbis and an n o u n ces th at he has begun tran slatin g the T h is leaves 1403 or 1404 as possible candidates. Baron prefers 1403, on
Phaedo. From its position in B ru n i’s Epistolano, one would norm ally be led unconvincing grounds, because he would like the Laudatio to be as close
to infer that its date is 5 S ep tem b er [1405], Luiso, how ever, redated the to his “ crisis” of 1402 as possible . 17 A gainst B aro n ’s fragile web of conjec­
letter to 1400, arg u in g th at, since the Dialog! ad Petrum Histrum, set d u rin g tu re, how ever, there is B em bo’s solid date of M arch 1404— M arch 1405
April 1401, m entions in its second book the recent publication of the for the com position of the Phaedo. If we accept this date as reliable, as I
Laudatio, Ep. 1.1 m ust date from the previous S eptem ber. Luiso failed to have argued we should, the only possible date for Ep. 1.1 becom es 5
consider two other possibilities, (a) th at A pril 1401 was m erely the S eptem ber 1404.18 T his also m eans that the m ost probable date for the
dram atic date of the Dialogi, not the d ate of com position, or (b) that com position of the Laudatio is the late su m m er of 1404.19
Dialpgus I had been published separately before Dialogus I I . 13 W e can now tu rn to the vexatious problem of the Dialogi. L. B.
O p e of these possibilities, how ever, is clearly the case; for the m om ent M o rten sen has arg u ed pow erfully, on the basis of a careful form al analysis
it does not m a tte r which one. For as H a n s B aron has effectively show n, of the dialogues and their ancient m odels, that the two books of the Dialog!
Ep. 1.1 can only be dated to 1403 o r 1404. T h e re are two decisive pieces (or Dialogus) presuppose each o th er to an extent which renders highly
of evidence which ren d er the 1400 date im possible. T h e first is that the
Laudptio m entions G ian g aleazzo ’s o ccupation of Bologna in J u ly of 1402 15 Ibid., p. 120f. The connection between Ep. 1.1 and Salutati’s copy of Aristippus,
and feflects, at the tim e o f w riting, the cessation of the M ilanese th reat, Vat. lat. 2063, can be made even more securely than Baron makes it. In his letter, Bruni
whic^i would have been recognized in Florence only after 5 S eptem ber writes, “ Illud certe tibi, ni fallor, praestabo, ut Platonem tuum sine molestia legas, addo
etiam ut cum summa voluptate legas, quod, ut puto, neque a Calcidio neque ab hoc altero,
1402.14 T h e second is B ru n i’s clear allusion to S alu tati’s copy of A ristip ­ qui bene atque graviter nomen suum suppressit, adhuc tibi praestitum est.” But Vat. lat. 2063
p u s’ translation of the Phaedo, w hich we know that S alutati only acquired is the only surviving copy of Aristippus to omit the name of the translator. (For the other
codices see CPM A , vol. 2, pp. x-xviii.)
16 See above; no one has yet located the “ villa Lenzanichi” but there are no likely can­
didates near Viterbo, and no good motive for Bruni to have indulged in villeggiatura on this
11 Bembo stayed at Poggio’s house when in Florence, was later a friend of Landino and date; see AAVV, II Quattrocento a Viterbo (Rome, 1983) and G. Signorelli, Viterbo nella storm
FicinO, and was thus in a good position to have accurate information on the date of Bruni’s della chiesa, 3 vols. (Viterbo, 1907-1940). The identification by Luiso, “ Commento” , pp.
workg. See V. Cian, “ Per Bernardo Bembo: Le relazioni letterarie, i codici e gli scritti,” 92-93, of Lenzanichi with the village of Lancenigo near Treviso has been rightly ques­
in G SLI 31 (1898): 49-81; the reliability of the date for the Phaedo is accepted by C. Frati tioned by Baron, Humanistic and Political Literature, pp. 116-117, note 6, who prefers Sab-
in an article on the Turin MS in Raccolta di studi critici dedicata ad Alessandro d'Ancona badini’s suggestion of Vallenzatico, near Pistoia.
(Florence, 1901). Ullman, Origin and Development, p. 31, notes a correspondence between 17 Humanistic and Political Literature, p. 98f. Baron’s argument is basically that, had Bruni
Poggio’s son, Jacopo, and Bembo; Bertalot, Studien, p. 426n., mentions Bembo’s efforts written the Laudatio in 1404 rather than 1403, he would not have omitted the evidence,
to put together a collection of Bruni’s works. See King, pp. 335-339, for a bio-bibliography recently discovered but not yet published by Salutati, “ proving” that Florence was found­
and M. C. Davies, “ An Enigma and a Phantom: Giovanni Aretino and Giacomo ed under the Roman Republic; Bruni, Baron claims, would not want to steal credit for
Langpschi,’’ Humanistica Lovamensia 37 (1988): 17, for Bembo’s concern for accurate this discovery from Salutati. Leaving aside the anachronistic assumptions about “ publica­
dates. tion” and “ credit for discoveries” , a far more likely explanation for the omission is simply
12 Poggio and other humanists used the word edo both in the sense of “ publish’’ and the unsuitability of elaborate critical discussions in an oration such as the Laudatio.
also—^especially in subscriptions—in the sense of “ compose” ; see Silvia Rizzo, II lessico 18 See also note 29, below.
filolog\co degli umamsti (Rome, 1973), pp. 319-322.
19 In Ep. 1.1, Bruni informs Niccoli as to what title he would like to use for his Laudatio:
“ TThe second of these possibilities is of course Baron’s thesis, maintained at great “ Orationem, in qua laudes Florentinorum congessi, Laudatio Florentinae Urbis inscribi
lengtl^ in his Crisis (1955) and Humanistic and Political Literature, p. 126f. The first possibility placet.” This passage implies that Niccoli was discharging his usual function of acting as
was initially raised by D. Vittorini, “ I Dialoghi ad Petrum Histrum di Leonardo Bruni,” Bruni’s “ publisher” , and Bruni was supplying him with instructions lor the rubricator.
Puhl. of the Mod. Lang. Assoc. 55 (1940), p. 715, note 3, and has recently been defended
Against this interpretation one might cite Bruni’s Ep. II. 3 [II. 4] of December 1406, refer­
vigorously by L. B. Mortensen (see below, note 20).
ring to his Laudatio “ quam nuper edidi” , but Mortensen (cited in note 20), pp. 266-267
14 See Baron s arguments in Humanistic and Political Literature, p. 114f.
has shown the extremely elastic value of nuper in Bruni's usage.
372 PART I A PPEN D IC ES 373

irtiprobable B a ro n ’s thesis that Dialogus I was com posed as an independent inform ation from the Periochae of Livy (lib. 114) or from the T uscan
wjork four years e a rlie r . 20 M o rten sen accepts V itto rin i’s view that 1401 is translation of P lu ta rc h ’s Life of Cato which S alutati had had m ade d uring
rrjerely the d ram atic date of the dialogue, and argues convincingly for a the 1390s.24 But it is questionable how thoroughly these works were
dhte of 1403/1406. W e m ay add to M o rte n se n ’s arg u m en ts the fu rth er ob­ studied in the S alutati circle, for as late as 1399/1401 Salutati him self was
servation that both Dialogi presuppose a tim e of friction betw een Salutati still capable of confusing C ato the C en so r w ith C ato U ticensis (see
ajid his m ore classicizing disciples, a tim e most plausibly identified as N ovati 3:532-533). So the likeliest tim e for the contradiction between
1404/5, the last two years of S a lu ta ti’s life, w hen the elderly chancellor en ­ D a n te ’s and P lu ta rc h ’s account to come forcibly to B ru n i’s attention was
tered a m ore pious p h a se . 21 It also presupposes a period w hen B runi was d u rin g the period when he was p roducing his own L atin version of
closely engaged in the study of P lutarch; to this we shall retu rn in a m o­ P lu ta rc h ’s Life of Cato.
rdent. O n e could, th en , reg ard the date of 1403/6 for both Dialogi as set­ T h e date of B ru n i’s translation of the Vita Catonis is thus not w ithout
tled, b u t for one trou b lin g detail. T h is is the m atter of the m anuscript relevance to the com position of Dialogus I. T his date cannot be estab­
tradition of Dialogus I. As B aron has shown, there exists a separate lished w ith precision, but we can lay dow n M arch of 1405 as a terminus
m anuscript trad itio n for Book I of the Dialogus, a fact w hich seems on the ante quem for a first draft of the w ork, and circum stances make it highly
face of it to support his hypothesis of a two-stage com position for the probable that the w ork was in fact drafted very shortly before that date.
Dialogus.22 But B aron has overlooked a n o th er possible reason why B runi B ru n i’s first two translations, we know, w ere his translation of Basil’s Ad
m ight have chosen to circulate Book I of the Dialogi separately from Book adolescentes and his version of X en o p h o n ’s Hiero\ both are definitely before
It M ay of 1403, and can be dated on the basis of circum stantial evidence
Before we can raise this second possibility, how ever, we m ust first ex­ to aro u n d 1400/1. In the period after these translations is probably to be
plore a little m ore the chronology of B ru n i’s translations of P lutarch. As placed B ru n i’s brief retu rn to law school, w hich Poggio m entions in his
we have ju st rem ark ed , B ru n i’s Dialogi presuppose a close reading of the funeral o ra tio n . 25 For B ru n i’s first version from P lu tarch , the Vita Marci
Lives. P articularly suggestive is N iccoli’s criticism of D ante in Book I of
ti>e Dialogi which faults the poet for p o rtray in g C ato U ticensis as an old
rrian with a white b eard , w hen in fact (says Niccoli) he died at the age of 24 See W. H. Gross, art. “ M. Porcius Cato Uticensis’’, in Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Real-
Encyclopaedie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol. 43 (1953), cols. 168-213: 168-169. For
forty-eight . 23 It is true that Niccoli (and B runi) could have derived this Salutati’s knowledge of the Periochae of Livy’s history, see Novati 2:298-299. Cato’s age
at death could not be inferred from the passages which mention Cato in Cicero’s letters
( Fam., XVI, 22.1), Caesar’s Bell, civ., Sallust, Suetonius, Cassius Dio (XLII.57.4),
20 “ Leonardo Bruni’s Dialogus: A Ciceronian Debate on the Literary Culture of Valerius Maximus (III. 1.2), or any of the other historical sources Salutati lists as com­
Flprence,’’ Classica et Mediaevalia 37 (1986): 259-302. Mortensen’s argument is essentially prising the “ commonly known” books of history (in a letter to Juan de Heredia, in
a restatement in a far stronger form ofjerrold Seigel’s position in Past and Present 34 (1966): Novati, 3:298-299). Appian, Betlum civile 11.99 says Cato was “ about fifty years of age” ,
3-jf8, although Seigel follows Luiso’s date of 1401 for the two Dialogi, whereas Mortensen erq pev apcpi rcevirrixov-ca yeyovax;, but Appian was not known in Florence until 1427 when
wpuld date both Dialogi to 1403/06. I refer the reader to Mortensen’s ample discussion of Filelfo brought back a codex from Constantinople; see R. Sabbadini, Le scoperte dei codici
thp secondary literature on the Dialogi. David Quint, in “ Humanism and Modernity: A latini egreci nei secoli X I V e X V (Florence, 1967). p. 48. Plutarch’s Vita Catonis (with Cato’s
Reconsideration of Bruni’s Dialogues, R Q 38 (1986): 423-445, has shown that Baron’s age at death at cap. 3.2 and 73.1) was known to Salutati in a fourteenth century Tuscan
view—that Dialogus II reveals the impact upon Bruni of the political events of version which he had had made sometime in the 1390s from an Aragonese version of
14(02—cannot be maintained for the simple reason that Niccoli does not in fact retract Plutarch’s Lives which had in turn been translated from a modern Greek version; see
anything he said in Dialogus I. It is probably no coincidence that both the Dialogi and the Novati, 2:289-312. Bruni, too, had a copy of this Tuscan version, as we learn from the
Lqudatio come from the period when Bruni was anxious to succeed Salutati as chancellor colophon of a copy made from his (see Bandim, 5:242-244). This copy of Bruni’s transla­
of Florence and therefore wished to counteract the charge that the young classicists in Nic­ tion, MS Laur. 61, 11, contains the Vita di Catone on ff. 8v to 21ra; the passage where
coli’s circle were insufficiently patriotic. Plutarch gives Cato’s date at his death (f. 21vb) reads “ E cato morj deta danni
21 See Witt, Salutati, pp. 398-401, for the details of the quarrel between Poggio and XLVIIIo” (communication of Sebastiano Gentile).
Btfuni on the one side and Salutati on the other. 25 Mehus 1: CXX. Poggio adds that Bruni complained to him how hard it was to
22 See Baron, “ One-Dialogue Manuscripts of the Dialogi" in Humanistic and Political return to law school, “ praesertim cum tanquam studiorum suorum primitias iam
Literature, pp. 129-145. quaedam opuscula edidisset summa cum eloquentia, et omnium commendatione. ” This
23 Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum in Garin, ed., Prosatori Latini del Quattrocento (Milan-Naples, would seem to refer to Bruni’s versions of St. Basil and Xenophon’s Hiero, which are de­
1952), p. 68: “ M. vero Catonem, eum qui civilibus bellis interfuit, senem admodum bar- scribed by Bruni himself in their prefaces as degustatio, pnm itiae, etc.; see Schn/ten, pp. 99,
fa^ cana atque prolixa describit, ignorans videlicet tempora; ille enim quadragesimo oc­ 101. According to Poggio’s account, Bruni’s second law-school period overlapped (interea)
tavo aetatis suae anno iuvenis etiam atque aetate integra supremum diem Uticae clausit. ’ ’ with his own departure for Rome, which happened shortly before February, 1404 [n.s.j
The criticism is also repeated in Book II, pp. 87-88. (Luiso, p. 4).
374 PART I A PPEN D ICES 375

Antpnii, we have only the terminus ante quem of S alu tati’s death in M ay of T h e chronological proxim ity of B ru n i’s version of the Cato and Dialogus
1406, but the dedication to S alu tati m akes it likely th at it was translated I is only a conjecture, b u t it suggests a plausible hypothesis to account
before B ru n i’s d e p a rtu re for R om e in M arch 1405.26 for w hy B runi decided to publish Book I of the Dialogi before the entire
W e know, then, that B ru n i’s tran slatio n of the Vita Catonis was either w ork was com pleted. O nly an unusual set of circum stances w ould have
his fourth or fifth tran slatio n (its position relative to the Phaedo cannot be com pelled B runi to publish an unfinished w ork— som ething he generally
precisely established), w hich w ould place it near the end of B ru n i’s first avoided. But ju st such an u n usual set of circum stances occurred in the
Florentine period. W e have also som e circum stantial evidence from few m onths p rio r to B ru n i’s d ep artu re for R om e. B runi, we know , was
B riini’s Epistolario w hich supports this conclusion. W e have already cited extrem ely eager to win a position as apostolic secretary to Innocent V II.
B ru n i’s letter 1 .10 w hich gives us a snapshot of B ru n i’s literary projects A n opening was an n o unced in late 1404 or early 1405, and B runi soon
in O ctober of 1405: the Phaedo finished, the Cato drafted, a translation of heard ab out it from Poggio; the com petition was intense, there being a
Ptcjlemy projected (b u t never com pleted). W e get fu rth er inform ation on strong party in favor of app o in tin g Jaco p o A ngeli d a S carperia, B ru n i’s
the progress— o r lack of it— of the Cato version in a letter of A ugust 1406 old com panion in the school of C hrysoloras. As Poggio reports it, Bruni
(1.20 = M ehus X .1 9 ). In this letter B runi tells Niccoli: sent him in R om e quaedam scripta to be circulated am ong the cardinals
and o th er influential persons several m onths before B runi him self cam e
I know you want the Story of Cato, and I’d willingly do it, but I ’d like you
to know why I have still delayed its publication. You know, surely, since to com pete for the p o st . 29* It is plausible to suppose that am ong these
you were with me at the time, how quickly I translated it into Latin, so that quaedam scripta was the first book of the unfinished Dialogi, hastily polished
in a few places some things were omitted through haste, in the hope that and given the title “ Libellus de utilitate d isp u tatio n is” . T h e w ork would
I might [later] bring them under consideration more safely and carefully. have served B runi adm irably in his cam paign: it would have advertised
You would have had them clean and polished in your hands before now, B ru n i’s classical culture and his eloquence, both likely to be attractive
had I had the necessary books after my departure [from Florence]. I’m
afraid if I publish it in its present form I shall open the window to qualities to a m an who has been called the first hum anist pope. It would
calumny . 27 also have und erlin ed B ru n i’s connections w ith Salutati and C hrysoloras,
connections w hich at that m om ent had great cachet in the papal court.
T his letter, then, alludes to an occasion before B ru n i’s d ep artu re from Ja c o p o A ngeli, who had also been a student of S alutati and C hrysoloras,
Florence when B runi, following a practice com m on in the fifteenth cen­
tury, dictated a rough version of the Life of Cato to an am anuensis in Nic-
coli’s presence. H e w ould have polished his version, b u t the necessary 29 Mehus 1:CXX (Poggio’s funeral oration for Bruni): “ Et cum antea Leonardus, qui
illam legum molestiam effugere cupiebat, primo verbis, deinde litteris egisset mecum, ut
books to do so were in Florence, and he had left before he was able to curarem, ut in curiam accersiretur ad aliquod exercitium, ex quo victum honestum
m ake the needed revisions . 28 T h is argues th at the Cato was one of B ru n i’s posset consequi, mihi vero cum his, qui essent Innocentio proximi, summa esset
last projects before leaving Florence. necessitudo; laudando Leonardum et orationis elegantiam virtutemque prae ceteris ex-
tollendo ac simul quaedam eius scripta ostentando effeci, ut is, licet ignotus turn Pontifici
turn ceteris ab Innocentio Secretarius fieret, duorum praesertim opera qui pontifici erant
carissimi [Francesco da Fiano and Bartolomeo Capra?] mihique satisfacere cupiebant.”
See Baron, Schnften, pp. 161-162; the general circumstances of the preface strongly Another of the quaedam scripta may have been Bruni’s Ep. I.J; it is hard to see why Bruni
suggest a Florentine context. needed to boast to Niccoli that Salutati was his “ father and teacher’’ (Mehus 1:16),
27 Mehus 2:189-190: “ Catonis historiam te cupere intelligo. Faciam equidem libenti whereas it was precisely Bruni’s relationship to Salutati that was his greatest recommen­
anitno, sed unam rem volo non ignores quae adhuc me quominus earn ederem remorata dation in his early days at the curia. If it was circulated in the curia before Bruni’s arrival
fuit. Scis tu profecto, qui michi per illud tempus affuisti, quanta cum celeritate ilia sit in March, it would explain why Bruni chose to insert a letter from his Florentine period
a nobis in latinum traducta, ut etiam nonnullis in locis aliquid propter festinantiam sit into Books I-III of his epistolario, which Lucia Gualdo has characterized as his “ Roman
praetermissum ea turn spe, quod diligentius consideravissemus et tutius. Si itaque diary” . See her article “ La struttura dell’epistolario bruniano e il suo significato
facultas librorum michi post discessum meum affuisset, iamdudum politam atque tritam politico,” forthcoming in the A tti of the congress Leonardo Bruni cancelliere della repubblica
in rhanibus haberes. Sic autem ut est, si ederem, vereor ne obtrectatoribus fenestram ad di Firenze, Oct. 27-29, 1987. For the importance of Bruni’s relationship to Salutati for his
calumniandum, quod maxime captare videntur, aperirem.’’ establishment at the curia, see note 4 above and Bruni’s letter of 13 September 1405 to
2B See also the note to Niccoli from August, 1406, published by Bertalot (Studien Salutati (Bertalot, Studien 2:418) where he writes: “ Quod enim te diutius usus sum et fre-
2:4'l5). The Life was still unfinished in October/November 1407, when Bruni wrote to quentissime in domo tua versatus, existimant homines me tuis praeceptis imbutum scien-
Pietro Miano asking for a copy ol the Greek text against which he might check his version tia pariter et eloquentia pollere. Itaque cum me laudare volunt—haec enim quotidie in
(Kp. 11.16, published by Baron in Schriften, p. 108, from Luiso, p. 38). We do not know ipsa curia sentio—illud in primis afferunt quasi fundamentum: per multos annos
when Bruni published the revised version of the Cato (despite Baron, Schnften, p. 162). discipulus Colucii fuit.”
37f6 PART I A PPENDICES 377

w&s conspicuously absent from the dialogue. T h e hypothesis also gives Diopithe), w ithout preface; (ff. 40va-62va,'w ith a lacuna of several lines
u^ an excellent explanation for the curial origin of the earliest one- on f. 53va-vb after “ de gloria et honore certare non d e stitit” ) B runi’s
diialogue m anu scrip ts of the Dialogic0 translation of D em osthenes Pro Ctesiphonte, with arg u m en t (inc. Adversus
jlf this hypothesis is accepted, then Dialogus I in all likelihood dates Philippum M acedonie regem ); (ff. 62va-63v) B ru n i’s translation of
frpm B ru n i’s last m onths in Florence. A date after M arch of 1405 is b are­ X e n o p h o n ’s Apology, w ithout rubric, fragm entary at the end {des. ut
ly possible, b u t the preface to V ergerio strongly im plies that B runi was vestem m u taret neque facere voluit). T he volum e contains two colophons
still in Florence, and there is no reason why this should be a literary in ­ in B ru n i’s hand: 1 . O n f. 40r, “ Hec D em osthenis oracio translata est
vention. B aron him self has arg u ed that Book II of the Dialogi was Finished fideliter per me L eonardum A retinum de m ense N ovem bris millesimo
shortly after B runi left F lorence . 31 O n this hypothesis, then, both Baron q u ad ringentesim o sexto, apostolica sede v acan te” [i.e ., 6-30 N ovem ber
and his critics have elem ents of tru th in their arg um ents. T h e Dialogi 1406].34 2. O n f. 62va, “ Leonardus A retinus die X X V Aprilis circa
were indeed finished in two distinct stages. But they w ere certainly horam N one absolvit. Die sancti M arci R o m e . ” 3536 It is to be noted that
planned as a single w ork, and the two stages of their com position fall later the translations in this m anuscript all ap p ear in the o rd er in which Bruni
and closer to gether than B aron supposed. translated them ; this fact strongly suggests that' the translation of
T o conclude this discussion of the chronology of B ru n i’s early works, X e n o p h o n ’s Apology, hitherto undated, should be placed som etim e short­
we m ay m ention the evidence presented by a new ly-identified autograph ly after B ru n i’s version of the Pro Ctesiphonte.
m anuscript of B runi: P ad u a, U niv. 1499, c a rt., m isc., s. X V 1/4. T his T h e results of o u r argum ent may be sum m arized in the following
m anuscript, rebo u n d in m o d ern tim es, is com prised of two unrelated table.
p a rts . 32 T h e first p art of the m an u scrip t (ff. 1-63) was evidently B ru n i’s
own w orking copy of some of his early translations, and is partly
Proposed Chronology of B runi’s Early Works
au to g rap h (ff. 36r-62v).33 It contains (ff. lr-7v) B ru n i’s translation of
X e n o p h o n ’s Hiero, w ith the preface to Niccoli; (ff. 8r-30v) B ru n i’s 1 . Carmen de adventu imperatoris (1397/98).35
translation of the Vita Marci Antonii, fragm entary at the end (des. Ego 2. L atin translation of St. Basil’s Epistola ad adolescentes. Probably
sum , inquit C u rid es, latoris qui C esaris fo rtu n a p aternas iniurias ulciscor 1400/1401; definitely before M ay, 1403.37
lachares cuius ab A ntonio), with the preface to Salutati; (ff. 31r-35v) 3. L atin translation of X en o p h o n ’s Hiero. Before M ay, 1403; proba­
blank; (ff. 36r-40r) B ru n i’s translation of the “ E ighth P hilippic” (Pro bly 1401.37
4. L atin translation of P lu tarch ’s Vita Marci Antonii. Before M ay 4,
?° Baron, Humanistic and Political Literature, pp. 129-145. 1406, and probably before the spring of 1405.38
31 Ibid., p. 1591'.
32 I was led to this manuscript by a catalog excerpt in Iter 2:17a. Bertalot also seems
5. Laudatio Florentinae urbis. Late sum m er, 1404.
to |iave had some indirect knowledge of the manuscript, since he cites a shortened version 6. Ep. 1.1 [1.8]. Septem ber 5, 1404.
of the colophon on f. 62va (Sludien, 2: 390), but he does not identify the manuscript as
autograph or list its contents, and he gives the date of Bruni’s version of the eighth Philip-
pic from an Oxford manuscript (Canon, class, lat. 304) of no special authority (ibid.). 34 Compare the colophon published by Bertalot, Studien, 2: 390, from the Oxford
The second part of the manuscript contains (ff. 64ra-148v) “ Recollectiones super libris manuscript: “ Rome conversa e greco in latinum apud sanctissimum Petrum apostolica
[Afistotelis] De anima quas collegit sub fratre Leonardo de Utino magistro studencium sede vacante propter mortem Innocentii Pape VII” .
Bohonie 1424 ordinis predicatorum Frater Anthonius de Sicilia studens Bononiensis or- 35 Published by Bertalot, note 32 above, without the phrase “ circa horam None” .
dirjis eiusdem” and (ff. 149r-184v) Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, Book I and a fragment 36 See Baron, Crisis (1955), 2:575-576.
of ^ook II. The editor of the recent edition of Bruni’s version of the De corona, though 37 Terminus ante quern from Laur. XXV sin. 9, containing the St. Basil letter (ff.
shh saw the manuscript (or a portion of it?) on microfilm, seems not to have realized that 75r-82v), the Hiero (ff. 34r-45r), and the colophon (same hand, f. 98v: 1403, 25 Maii
the! manuscript is autograph: M. Accame Lanzillotta, Leonardo Bruni Iraduttore di scriptus est hec Florentie Frater Thebaldus tunc vacans). See F. Mattesini, “ La
Depiostene: La “ Pro Ctesiphonte” (Genoa, 1986), p. 36. biblioteca francescana di S. Croce e Fra Tedaldo della Casa,” Sludi Francescani 57 (1960):
?3 That the Padua manuscript is indeed autograph is evident from a comparison of the 254-316.
hahd with the plates published by C. Griggio, “ Due lettere inedite del Bruni al Salutati 38 The work’s dedication to Salutati and the general circumstances depicted in the
e a Francesco Barbaro,” Rinascimento, ser. 2, 26 (1986), inter pp. 42-43, and with other preface indicate a time before Bruni left for Rome; see above, p. 374. The likelihood is
specimens of Bruni’s hand in Escorial n. III.7 (Cat. A, no. 59) and Laur. 79, 19 (dedica­ that the Vita Marci Antonii was completed before September 1404, since a later date would
tion copy ol Bruni s trans. of Aristotle’s Economics with corrections in his hand on ff. 2r, crowd yet another work into a six-month period already containing Bruni’s Dialogi and
5r, 7v, lOr, 12v, 26v, 31v, 33r, 37v, 16r). his translations of the Phaedo and the Vita Catonis.
378 PART I

7. L atin translatio n of the Phaedo. B egun S eptem ber, 1404, and finish­
ed before M arch , 1405. D edicated to Innocent V II shortly after
O ctober 12, 1405. APPENDIX 2
8 . L atin tran slatio n of P lu ta rc h ’s Vita Catonis. First redaction in w inter
or early sp rin g of 1405; final version after O cto b er /N ovem ber, T H E D A T E S O F B R U N I’S T W O R E D A C T IO N S O F T H E L A T IN
1407. C R IT O A N D A P O LO G Y A N D O F H IS V E R S IO N S O F
9. Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum. First draft of both Dialogi after T H E GORGIAS, P H A E D R U S A N D E P IST O L A E
S eptem ber, 1404, and p robably shortly before M arch , 1405; Book
I probably dedicated and published before B ru n i’s d ep artu re for T h e existence of prim itive redactions of B ru n i’s translations of the Onto
R om e; polished version of Book II added soon afterw ards. and Apology was first discovered by Ludw ig B ertalot in 1934 in the course
10. Laudatio in junere Othonis adolescentis. Between A ugust 8 , 1405, and of his fam ous controversy with H ans B aro n . 1 W e have no secure date for
the end of the sam e y e a r . 39 them b u t the form er dialogue was certainly translated before the au tu m n
11 . L atin tran slatio n of D em o sth en es’ Pro Diopithe. N ovem ber 6-30, of 1423, w hen R inuccio A retino published a version of the Crito which
1406. m ade unacknow ledged use of B ru n i’s first version . 2 In fact, a variety of
12. L atin tran slatio n of D em o sth en es’ Pro Ctesiphonte. B egun late circum stantial evidence points to the conclusion that they were tu rned
A ugust of 1406. First draft com pleted by D ecem ber 23, 1406. Final betw een the fall of 1404, w hen B runi com pleted his translation of the
version finished A pril 25, 1407.40 Phaedo, and N ovem ber of 1409, w hen he Finished work on his Gorgias, and
13. Latin tran slatio n o f X e n o p h o n ’s Apology. Probably soon after A pril, probably earlier rath er than later in that lustrum .
1407. In the first place, the letter to Niccoli quoted in volum e 1 (p. 42) clearly
im plies that the Phaedo was the earliest of B ru n i’s Plato translations. It
is in any case likely th at he w ould have begun with it since he had
39 For the date, see Baron, Crisis (1955), 2:535-536. The detail that the work was in­ available A ristip p u s’ translation as a trot; in his early period B ru n i’s
scribed to Bartolomeo Capra is given by Bertalot, Studien 2:394. knowledge of G reek was by no m eans as secure as he liked to p re te n d . 3
40 For the various stages, see Bruni’s letters to Niccoli 1.20 (X.19) and II.3 (II.4).
It is also highly likely that the two early versions were published before
the Gorgias was finished, since they show in every respect an inferior com ­
m an d of G reek . 4 It m ight be thought that their inferiority was ow ing to

1 See Berti, pp. 15-16.

2 See Berti, p. 21. Since the translation was made in Constantinople where Rinuccio
spent some years, and since he is reported to have been in Crete in 1415/16, it is likely
that he had a copy of the version already by this latter date, which would push the date
of Bruni’s Crito yet further back.
3 See Berti’s discussion (chapter 2) of Bruni’s early version of the Crito and Accame
Lanzillotta (App. 1, note 32) on his De corona (published in April 1407).
4 The frequent mistakes, ellipses and simplifications found by Berti in the early version
of the Crito are largely absent from the Gorgias, and in a number of cases one can point
to clear improvements in Bruni’s understanding o f Greek vocabulary and idiom. To give
but a few examples of this I note that in the first version of the Crito Bruni misunderstands
the theatrical word xai:ay6Xdi<;, “ laugh down” , while at 482D 5 of his Gorgias he correctly
translates derisit for xa-cayeXa. In his mature Greek versions Bruni avoided transliterations
as much as possible for the sake of clarity and propriety (see Schriften, p. 77 and my com­
ments in The Humanism, p. 210 and above, vol. 1, p. 42f.), but in his early renderings
transliterations are far more common (Berti, p. 22f. and Accame Lanzillotta, p. 7If.) At
53B 5 in the Crito he transliterates ttoXitsia (ed. Berti, p. 181), while at Gorgias 510A 9
he gives the Latin equivalent res publica. In the early version of the Apology (studied in
Chigi J. V I.214, ff. 36r-39v = Cat. A, no. 299), Bruni gives the transliterations rhetor,
380 PART I A PPEN D ICES 381

some defect in B ru n i’s G reek text, w hich (for exam ple) long deterred him B ru n i’s translation of the Phaedo (and therefore Ep. 1.8, the Laudatio, and
from publishing his p rim itive version o f P lu ta rc h ’s Cato, but B e rti’s id en ­ the B aronian “ crisis” ) to com e late in his first F lorentine p erio d . 10 T his
tification of B ru n i’s G reek codex has elim inated this hy p o th esis . 5 If the in terp retatio n , how ever, is surely very forced. In the first place, the
Gorgias was begun already by late 1405, as I shall indicate below, this passage can hardly be taken au pied de la lettre, as B ru n i’s translation of
w ould put the prim itive Cnto an d Apology very soon after the Phaedo v er­ the Phaedo, at least, antedates his versions of D em osthenes, and his ver­
sion^ though of course B ru n i frequently w orked on two or three versions sion of the Gorgias, his second series of P lu tarch versions. B runi him self
at once, som etim es taking several years w ith each; and we know th at the tells us that the chronology is not to be taken too seriously: “ neque enim
Gorgias was not polished for publication until 1409 (see below). O th er propositum est singula prosequi, sed generatim a ttin g e re .” I suspect that
signs which point to this period are the dem o n strably R o m a n provenance B runi, w hen speaking of the “ Platonis A ristotelisque lib ri” , was think­
of m ost of the early m an u scrip t tra d itio n , 6 and B ru n i’s later success in ing, not of his own early versions from the first decade of the century,
preventing these em b arrassin g early versions from becom ing know n in b ut rath er of his recent L atin rendering of the Ethics, the version of the
Florence , 7 an end m ore easily accom plished in the period 1405/9 w hen Phaedrus ju st published, the new version of the Apology he was currently
B rum was usually in R om e, th an in the period after 1409, w hen he was engaged in, and perhaps his plan to collect togethe'r his six versions of
often in Florence. Finally there is the evidence of the earliest m an u scrip t, Plato into a “ collected ed itio n ” . T his in terp retatio n of the passage is
K arlsruhe, R eichenau Perg. 131, placed by A lbinia de la M are very e a r­ reinforced by an anonym ous Laudatio Leonardi w hich was clearly w ritten
ly in the fifteenth c e n tu ry . 8 in Florence by a contem porary well acquainted w ith B ru n i’s life and
A gainst this evidence one can only set the vague chronology of his own works. In a passage which reads like a com m entary on the preface to the
translations B runi gave in the preface to his L atin Phaedrus (1424), w hich Phaedrus, the anonym ous au th o r w rites, “ P rim u m igitur eloquentissim o-
places his translations of P lato and A ristotle after his translations of rum graecae linguae au cto ru m , D em osthenis, A eschinis, X enophontis,
D em osthenes, A eschines (the datable ones are inter 1406-1412) and the P lutarchi atque Basilii quindecim libros in terp retatu s est. Ac inde rnaiora
“ h isto rian s” (presum ably his translations from P lutarch and iam ausus [see note 9] Platonis sex, A ristotelis vero viginti libros qui ad
X en o p h o n ’s Apology).9 B aron has arg u ed th at the passage dem onstrates m ores et rectam vivendi viam scrib u n tu r diligenter et ornate latine
d ictav it . ” 11*
sichophantes, politici, demonia for words he translates in the Gorgias as oralores, adulatores, viri If this in terp retatio n is accepted, it seems to show a reluctance on
duties, and signum divinum.
B ru n i’s p art to draw atten tio n to his abortive early translations of the
5 “ La traduzione di Leonardo Bruni del Fedone di Platone ed un codice greco della
Bibliotheca Bodmeriana,’’ Museum Helveticum 35 (1978): 125-148. Crito and Apology. T h e translations were never dedicated to anyone, and
6 See Cat. A for the circulation of these translations in the Roman court. O f the 21 if B runi ever referred to them in his letters, he suppressed the reference
manuscripts containing one or both dialogues, only two can be associated with Florence, w hen he (heavily) edited his correspondence for publication in 1440.
but of these, App. A, no. 92, is evidently a copy of a Venetian manuscript (no. 370),
while the Riccardianus (no. 106) cannot be shown to originate in Florence either by script
or provenance. The copy made in Lucca in 1434 (no. 197) is the work of Guilelmus
Rustichellus, a scribe who worked primarily in Lombardy. The first versions of the
Apology and the Cnto are associated early and often in the manuscript tradition, which Latinis claruerunt. Et oratorum Graecorum, quo quidem genere litterarum neque il-
leads pne to suppose they were translated at about the same time. lustrius quicquam neque perfectius reperiri potest, traductis aliquot Demosthenis
7 Traversari, who (though hostile to Bruni) was well informed about his scholarly ac­ Aeschinisque orationibus, participes illorum facundiae nostros reddidimus. Inde maiora
tivities, had not heard of them in 1423; see volume 1, p. 67. iam ausi, Platonis Aristotelisque libri, quos fore utilissimos ac dignissimos cognitu
8 In a letter ot 11 June 1982 to the present writer, Dr. de la Mare writes: “ This ms. putabamus, ne ista quoque litterarum pars studiosis deesset, multis vigiliis lucubra-
... is Certainly Italian, and [the decoration] recalls to me Paduan/Venetian manuscripts tionibusque per nos traducti ut Latine legerentur, efficimus. Praeterea alia, quae relerre
of the turn of the 14th-15th centuries.’’ For a description and discussion of the MS (App. possum: Xenophontis, Plutarchi, Basilii; neque enim propositum est singula prosequi,
A, no; 122), see Berti, p. 16f. sed generatim attingere.’’ Bruni’s reference to histonae here must mean his versions of
9 Sdhriften, pp. 125-7: “ Nam postquam Chrysoloras Byzantinus, vir magnus quidem Greek biography, since his translations of Greek history are mostly later: the De pnmo
ac prppe singularis, disciplinam Graecarum litterarum in Italiam rettulit, quarum bello punico based on Polybius is a compilation rather than a translation and dates from
cogniqo, quae quidem liberaliter erudita foret, septingentos iam annos nulla nostros 1421, while the translations of Xenophon’s Hellenica (1439) and Procopius (1441) were
apud homines habebatur, nos, tunc adolescentes ab illo summo Graecae linguae magistro presumably still gleams in the authorial eye.
instituti et docti, omnem mox operam ad id convertimus, ut, quarum rerum inopiam 10 Baron, Humanistic and Political Literature, p. 114f.
Latini paterentur, eas de Graecorum copia nostris laboribus suppleremus. Quare et his- 11 Laudatio Leonardi historici et oralons, printed by E. Santini, Leonardo Bruni Aretino e i
toriae aliquot, partim ignotae penitus, partim obscurae prius, nostra iam pridem opera suoi “ Historiarum Florentini populi libri X I I ” (Pisa, 1910), p. 149f.
 382 PART I A PPENDICES 383

Thb com pletion o f the Gorgias version is securely datable to the fall of Laudatio in Junere Othonis Gorgias, tr. Bruni
1409,j since on 1 N ovem ber of th at y ear B ru n i forw arded his L atin text “ Si igitur illud carmen veram Nam credo te iam in conviviis
to Florence, asking Niccoli to p rep are a fair copy “ as soon as possible ’ ’ . 12 habet sententiam quod Platonem audivisse carmen illud in quo con-
Thesei w ords suggest th at B ru n i m ay originally have in ten d ed to dedicate philosophum legimus solitum numerantur optimum esse bene
the translation to A lexander V , the pope u n d e r w hom he was then serv­ fuisse in conviviis grecorum can- valere, secundo loco formosum esse,
tare, tres esse res optimas et in hac tertio habet divitias non fraudulenter
ing, olr (less plausibly) to som e o th e r prelate. By a fo rtu n ate chance, the
vita maxime optabiles, primam quesitas. (Escorial n.III.7, f. 4r,
dedication copy Niccoli had p rep ared for B ru n i, w ritten by Niccoli and with a marginal note in the hand
bene valere, secundam formosum esse,
by the well-know n scribe G io v an n i A retin o , has survived; it has a few tertiam habere divitias non of Niccoli: “ Carmen in con­
m arginal an n o tatio n s in the h an d of Niccoli an d B runi, and the titles, in fraudulenter quesitas , . . 16 viviis’’)
capital letters, are w ritten by P o g g io . 13 By the tim e the dedication copy
was f(nished, how ever, J o h n X X III had succeeded A lexander V (M ay T h e date of the Phaedrus version and the second versions of the Crito
1410) for the codex we have was clearly w ritten for th at p o p e .1* A phrase and Apology. T h e terminus ante quem for the second versions of the Crito and
in the letter of dedication shows th at the w ork was not dedicated to J o h n Apology is fixed by a m anuscript, L aur. L X X V I, 57, dated to 25 Ju n e
im m ediately u p o n his accession, b u t th at B ru n i w aited alm ost a year after 1427 and containing the Epistulae, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo (see below).
the st&rt of his reign to dedicate the version to him (A pril 1411).15 T h e terminus post quem for the Apology is closely linked w ith the translation
T his evidence, how ever, does not tell us w hen the version was begun. of the Phaedrus. For on 18 D ecem ber 1423 we have a letter from T raver-
Ex GrQecia in Latium longa est via, B ru n i once rem ark ed to Niccoli (E p. I I . 4 sari w hich tells us that B runi was in the m idst o f his translation of the
[I I .5]), and there is evidence to suggest th at B runi began the Gorgias as Phaedrus an d was contem plating a version of the Apology, a letter of the
early as 1405. F or tow ards the end of th a t y ear (see A ppendix 1 ) B runi following J a n u a ry tells us that the Phaedrus was still u n finished . 17 We
w roteja funeral o ratio n for O tto n e C av alcan ti, a nephew of C ard in al Ac- have, m oreover, a colophon in Bologna, M S U niv. 2830 (C at. A, no. 30)
ciaiuoli, in w hich he alluded to a passage from the Gorgias, using alm ost d atin g the Phaedrus to 1424, which in Florentine style (the m anuscript was
exactly the w ords o f his later published translation: d ecorated in Florence) w ould m ean som etim e betw een 25 M arch 1424
and 24 M arch 1425. T h ere is also another letter of T rav ersari to Niccoli
d ated 21 J i'.ie 1424 in which Niccoli is told th at B ru n i’s Phaedrus version
is at last finished . 18 H ence the Phaedrus m ust have been finished between
12 Bfuni, Ep. III. 19 (III. 13): “ Gorgiam per hunc Riccii puerum tibi mitto. Tu, si 25 M arch 1424 and 21 J u n e 1424. If the Apology was finished after the
commode fieri poterit, dabis operam, ut quam celeriter transcribatur. ” Phaedrus, as T ra v e rsa ri’s letter of 18 D ecem ber surely licenses us to sup­
13 Tfie copy Niccoli had made is surely the Escorial MS (Cat. A, no. 59) with the uni­
pose, the Apology m ust then have been com pleted som etim e betw een 25
que preface to John XXIII, which Bruni later suppressed. The hand of Giovanni
Aretinp, a scribe frequently employed by the humanist circle in Florence, was identified M arch 1424 an d 25 J u n e 1427; the second half of 1424 is the m ost plausi­
by Albjnia de la Mare, who also recognized the hands of Poggio and Niccoli; see The ble date. T h e terminus post quem for the Crito is m ore conjectural, b ut it
Handwriting, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 57; see also eadem, “ Humanistic Script: the First Ten
seems likely on the basis of the m anuscript trad itio n th at it was com pleted
Years,” in F. Krafft and D. Wuttke, eds., Das Verhaeltnis der Humanisten zum Buck (Bop-
pard, l!977), p. 102 and plate 7a. I have identified Bruni’s hand on the basis of a com- ab o u t the sam e tim e as the Apology. B runi seems to have bro u g h t together
parisorf of a microfilm with the plates published by C. Griggio, “ Due lettere inedite del the six translations of Plato in a “ collected ed itio n ’’ som etim e in the later
Bruni ^1 Salutati e a Francesco Barbaro” , Rinascimento, n.s., 26 (1986), inter pp. 42-43.
1420s (p robably 1426/27), for which he com posed new argum ents for the
14 The arrangement of the gatherings shows that the preface (copied in the same hand
as the text) was written together with the text. (34 leaves, catchwords on ff. 9v, 19v, 29v, Crito, Apology, and Gorgias.19
prefacd on f. lr-v; a cover-sheet has evidently been removed from the first gathering.)
From this we may infer that the codex must have been completed after the death of Alex­ 16 Ed. E. Santini, Leonardo Bruni Aretino, p. 144.
ander in May 1410, and probably even after Bruni’s decision to return to the papal curia 17 See vol. 1, p. 67.
in earlf 1411, since the preface seems specific to Bruni’s situation at the time (see next 18 Traversari, Epistolae, 2:372, no. 278 » Lib. VIII.9.
note). 19 The Gorgias preface to John XXIII was suppressed, probably for the obvious reason,
15 See vol. 1, p. 53. The phrase in hoc reditu meo (Bertalot, 2:269) suggests that Bruni but the last paragraph was expanded to form the argument. For examples of the “ col­
presented the translation to John upon his return to the papal curia after the three-month lected edition” , see Cat. A, no.s 24, 27, 53, 74/78, 75, 125, 130, 132, etc. The “ collected
period when he served as the chancellor of Florence, probably as a means of edition” included the Phaedo, without the letter to Niccoli, the Gorgias, with the old argu­
reestablishing himself in the pope’s favor. ment but without the preface to John XXIII, the Letters, with argument
 384 PART I A PPEN D ICES 385

T h e date of the Platoms Epistulae. It was believed from the tim e of B a ro n ’s arg u m en t is m ore plausible, an d is based on two considera­
M ehus (1 :L X X V ) that this tran slatio n could be dated to 1427 in view of tions. T h e first is an inference draw n from the opening passage of the
a cplophon preserved in M S L au r. L X X V I, 57: “ A n tonius M arii filius dedication of the Epistulae to C osim o: “ In te r clam osos strepitus
F lofentinus civis absolvit F lorentiae V II K al. Ju lias 1427. V aleas feliciter neg o tio ru m q u e procellas, quibus F lo ren tin a palatia quasi Euripus
Coslma mi su av issim e.” Since the tran slatio n was dedicated to C osim o, q u id am sursum deorsum que assidue a estu an t, cum singula m odo non
it wfas n atu ral to believe that this was none other than the dedication dicta, sed v erba etiam in te rru m p e re n tu r, tam en, ut potui, L atinas effeci
cop)/, w ritten by the well-known scribe A ntonio di M ario , a calligrapher P latonis Epistolas’’ (Schriften, p. 135). T his reference to the turbulence of
frequently em ployed by C osim o and o th er m em bers of the h u m an ist cir­ the Palazzo della Signoria, says B aron, points to a tim e w hen Bruni was
cle in Florence. B ertalot (2:428), how ever, raised certain doubts that this chancellor. But since L au r. L X X V I, 57 is dated 25 J u n e 1427, and
was indeed the dedication copy, and B aron (for once in agreem ent with B runi did not begin his second term as chancellor until D ecem ber of that
him ) has arg u ed for a m uch earlier date of com position, d u rin g B ru n i’s year, the reference m ust be, Baron argues, to his first period as
First tenure as chancellor of Florence (Crisis [1955], pp. 614-615). But chancellor, from N ovem ber 1410 to M arch /A p ril 1411. As further
there is good reason to believe that the original date was correct, and that evidence, B aron cites a parallel passage in a letter redated by Luiso to
both B ertalot and B aron are m istaken. J a n u a ry of 1411 where B runi uses sim ilar language to describe his hectic
B ertalot’s arg u m en ts for questio n in g the claim of L au r. L X X V I, 57 life in the chancery: “ ad hos aestus procellasque o ccu p atio n u m ’’, whose
to be the dedication copy are surely u n so u n d . B ertalot argues (a) that the “ fluctuatio nim ia me su b m e rg it.’’
M S has num ero u s errors, and (b) th at the scribe m ade sim ilar subscrip­ T h e second piece of evidence proves n o thing, since the phrases Baron
tions in o th er m anuscripts which do not contain works dedicated to his quotes are conventional C iceronianism s (see Ver. 8 and Clu. 153), which
p atrp n . But there is no reason why the dedication copy, m ade from the B runi uses on m any other occasions; for exam ple, after he had returned
a u th o r’s ex em plar, should necessarily be m ore accurate th an any other to the F lorentine chancery a second tim e in 1427, he w rote to M arco
copy, if one is dealing with a careless scribe. T h e second arg u m en t is a D andolo (E p. V .4 [V .7], dated N ovem ber 1428) com plaining about the
sim ple non sequitur, as this m an u scrip t does contain a w ork dedicated to the distractions of the chancery in sim ilar language: “ N overam enim procellas
perspn for w hom it was w ritten. A nd we know that the dedication copy et aestus civilium negociorum ; ipse autem m ichi ocium et quietudinem
of the o ther w ork B runi inscribed to C osim o, the version of the ps.- vitae ab his strepitibus vacuam toto anim o com plectebar. ’ ’ T h e first arg u ­
A risfotelian Economics, was also w ritten by A ntonio di M a rio . 20 M o re ­ m en t appears sounder, but it m ust be noted that B ru n i’s presence in the
over, there is no oth er surviving m an u scrip t w hich can plausibly be iden­ F lorentine palatia need not refer to his activities as chancellor. In the sum ­
tified as the dedication copy, and it is not likely to have been alienated, m er of 1426, in fact, B runi was called on by the C o m u n e to serve as an
given the history of the L au ren tian L ib rary . N or can any m anuscript in am b assad o r to the H oly See (30 M ay to 29 Septem ber) and as part of this
the parly San M arco L ibrary (to w hich C osim o also don ated books) be m ission w ould have had to spend several days if not weeks, both before
identified w ith the dedication copy . 21 and after his trip to R om e, at the Palace being briefed and receiving his
instructions. It appears, m oreover, that B runi continued to serve as a
and ai preface to Cosimo de’ Medici, the Phaedrus with an argument and dedication to
channel for inform al com m unications betw een the Pope and the Signoria
Antopio Loschi, and the second versions of the Apology and Onto, with new arguments. reg ard in g business arising from his R o m an legation; two m onths later he
A parlallel case of Bruni compiling a “ collected edition’’ of his translations from an author was sent on an o th er m ission to the G o v ern o r of F o rli . 22* It seems likely,
is offered by his Corpus Demosthenicum (1421/28), for which see Bertalot, 2:398.
20 faur. LXXIX, 19. For other colophons signed by Antonio di Mario, see Benedic-
tins c|e Bouveret, Colophons de manuscnts occidentaux des origines au XVIe siecle, vol. 1 parvus in membranis” is surely Bodmer 136, the Greek manuscript written by Bruni
(Fribqurg a. Br., 1965), pp. 141-145, nos. 1124-1158. (with marginalia in the hand of Giorgio Antonio Vespucci), despite Diller, Studies, p. 254.
21 $ee B. L. Ullman and P. A. Stadter, The Public Library of Renaissance Florence: Niccold For further information on the fates of Cosimo’s books, see F. Ames-Lewis, The Library
Niccoli, Cosimo d e’Medici, and the Library of San Marco (Padua, 1972). No. 839 (p. 222) con­ and Manuscripts of Piero di Cosimo d e’Medici (New York, 1984).
taining Diogenes Laertius and “ Dialogi quidam Platonis” (San Marco 322) is now in 22 The documents from Bruni’s mission to Martin V are printed by Monzani in Ar-
the hqnds of a private collector (Cat. A, no. 393) and was written by Giorgio Vespucci chivto storico italiano, n.s., 5.2 (1857): 31-34. For the extended periods of briefing and
ca. 1470. No. 1131 (p. 256) containing “ Platonis dialogi X X III” is a Greek manuscript, debriefing sometimes undergone by ambassadors see the volumes ol ASF, Legazioni e
and can be identified with Barb. gr. 270 (see A. Diller, Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition Commissioni, Elezioni e Istruzioni di oratori; for the first legation in vol. 7, for instance,
[Amsterdam, 1983|, p. 256); No. 1132, containing “ Platonis dialogi quinque, liber the orator was instructed from at least 14 June to 30 June if not longer. For Bruni’s role
386 PART I A PPEN D IC ES 387

then, that B runi spent a good deal o f tim e in the au tu m n o f 1426 in the ap p aren tly possess a copy o f B ru n i’s translation until the later 1430s,
Signoria palace sharin g his w ell-know n curial expertise w ith the P riors w hen his zibaldone, M S A m bros. M 4 sup. (C at. A, no. 164) was evident­
and Colleges. If B runi tran slated the Epistulae d u rin g the a u tu m n follow­ ly co m piled . 25 Finally, w henever the Epistulae is circulated in collections
ing his R o m an m ission, the period from late 1426 to the following J u n e co n taining other Plato translations by B runi, it is never circulated with
w ould be ju st abo u t sufficient for the copying of a deluxe m an u scrip t con­ the prim itive versions of the Apology and Crito, b u t it does frequently ap ­
tainin g his tran slatio n s of the Letters, Apology, Crito, an d Phaedo. p ear w ith the second versions . 26
T h ere is also o th er strong evidence against B aro n ’s d atin g . First is the T h e likeliest explanation of the evidence, then, is that B runi translated
high p robability that L au r. L X X V I, 57 is indeed the dedication copy. the Platoms Epistulae d u rin g S eptem b er/O cto b er of 1426, and presented
Secondly, there is the excellent q uality of the version itself, which is the dedication copy to C osim o in J u n e of 1427.
am ong the very best tran slatio n s B runi ever m ade, and m ust surely date
from a period w hen he had attain ed a high degree of com petence in
G ree k . 23 25 See App. 5, p. 404. The manuscript was written by a Milanese scribe, probably in
the late thirties or early forties.
But the decisive arg u m en t is the evidence of the m an u scrip t tradition. 26 The only apparent exception to this is the Roscoe MS (Cat. A, no. 128), where the
In the case o f all of B ru n i’s early versions, including the Nicomachean Letters appear together with Xenophon’s Apology (an early translation which Bruni seems
Ethics, there survive copies th at dem o n strab ly circulated in the papal later to have suppressed), the Phaedo and the first version of the Crito. But from a detailed
description kindly provided by Dr. Martin Davies, it is clear that the Letters are
curia and elsew here w ithin a few years of publication; alm ost all of
codicologically distinct from the other dialogues, and represent a later addition to the
B ru n i’s w orks, for instance, seem to have circulated at the C ouncil of volume. Ff. lr-43r, containing the Phaedo, Xenophon’s Apology, and the Crito, are written
C onstance. T h e m an u scrip t trad itio n o f the Epistulae, how ever, offers no in a single Italian semihumanistic hand on five quires with the original signatures still
visible (a-c'° d12 [Phd.\\ a10 [Xen. Ap. +Cri.]). Ff. 44r-72r, containing the Letters, are
such exam ples. A lthough the version was one of B ru n i’s m ost po p u lar
written in a later humanistic hand (s. XV rned.) on two quires with a new set of
translations, surviving in alm ost a h u n d re d copies, and although I have signatures (a-b10).
been able to estim ate the date of 96 of these copies on the basis of ad e­
quate catalog entries o r personal inspection of the m an u scrip ts, there is
not a single one th at can be plausibly d ated before J u n e 1427.24 T h e
earliest dated copy (aside from L au r. L X X V I, 57) is L au r. Acq. e don.
323 from 1431 (C at. A, no. 84). It is also striking th at Francesco
Pizolpasso, one of B ru n i’s closest friends at the papal cu ria d u rin g the
tim e w hen B aron supposes B runi to have m ade his version, did not

as a channel between the Signoria and the papal curia, and for his legation to Forli, see
ibid, tjf. 68v (diplomatic instruction to Cosimo de’Medici, dated 18 November 1426):
“ Vediiite le lettere che il r. s. cardinale de sancto Marcello, di comandamento della San-
tita Sifa, scripse a messer Leonardo da Arezo sopra ’1 facto della restitutione delle nostre
terre et de nostri acomandati occupate da i nostri inimici, mandammo il detto messer
Leonardo, come vedemo essere intentione della Sua Beatitudine, al Reverenda Paternita
goverpatore di Forli,” [etc.] I have found no evidence in the Consulte e practiche (vol. 48)
that B|runi was called upon to give advice in the colleges during 1426, but these records
have rtnany gaps in the 1420s. Bruni was very proud of having served as Florentine
ambassador—the first tangible mark of his having entered the Florentine ruling class—
and this would be an excellent reason for including in the preface of his latest translation
a remjnder ol his new distinction. By contrast, his short term as Florentine chancellor
in 1411 had been a distinct failure.
23 Berti argues (p. 23) that Bruni’s translation of the Nicomachean Ethics in 1417 was
the turning point in his development as a translator.
24 I have not been able to obtain precise information on nos. 377 and 392 but there
is no reason to believe any of these are earlier than 1427.
 A PPEN D IC ES 389

belief that w hat the m ind reaches by dialectical reasoning is the in ­

telligible reality in w hich the sensible particu lar participates. T h e same
APPENDIX 3
m isapprehension is behind B ru n i’s ren d erin g of opeyexat xou 0VX09,
“ stretching out tow ards [or desiring] B eing’’, by veri inveniendi flagrat
B R U N I’S T R A N S L A T IO N S O F P L A T O cupiditate. Quid unumquodque sit for 0 xuyxavet exaoxov ov, in this context,
misses the nuance “ w hat each thing (really) is” , its ontological reality as
The Phaedo opposed to its sensible appearance; and the tran slatio n of xo aXr^eaxaxov,
“ the truest p art of th in g s” (i.e., their Being) by veritas has the effect of
In volum e 1 it was observed th at B runi produced a far clearer and m ore im plying there is no “ tr u th ” or Being at all in the sensible particular,
readable version of the Phaedo th a n A ristippus had, b u t th at he had not an im plication certainly at variance with P la to ’s view of the m atter. (W e
m ade m uch progress over A ristippus in u n d erstan d in g Platonic m ay note in passing B ru n i’s om ission of the response at 65D 3, vq Ata
m ethodology or Platonic m etaphysics. In this section we shall give some at D 6 , and etTtep 7xou aXXo0t at C 2, the w ooden se removens for P lato ’s
exam ples of B ru n i’s difficulties in h andling P la to ’s philosophical vivid iusaa xatp^^v and the inaccurate igitur for ouv at D 9.
thought. At 92C I lf . B runi gives this rendering of P la to ’s text:
At 65C 2— E 2 P la to ’s text reads:
IIoXu ptaXXov, 69?), exetvov, d> Zcuxpaxe?, oBe ptev yap pot yeyovev aveu
dp’ ouv oux ev xai XoytCea0at eikep tcou aXXo0t xaxaBiqXov auxfj yt'yvexaI xt xcov arco8ei'l'sa>9 ptexd etxoxo9 XIV09 xat euTCpenet'ai;, o 0 ev x a i xou; 7C0XX019 Boxei
o'vxcov; Nat. Aoyt'Cexat Be ye tcou t o t e . xaXXtaxa, oxav auxiqv xouxoov puqBev dv0pd)7roi9; eyco Be X019 81a xa>v etxoxcuv x a 9 a7to8et?ei9 7iotoupevot9 Xoyot9 auvotBa
rcapaXo7ufj, p^xe axorj [xrjxe oc]>t9 p^xe aXyriBoov ptr)8 e X19 r|8 ovr|, aXX’ oxt ptaXtaxa ouatv dXaCoatv, xat av X19 auxou9 pt7) puXaxxTjxat, eu paX a ei|a7taxaiai, xat ev
auxrj xa0’ auxrjv y£yvr]xat eoiaa xaiPeiv acopta, xat xa0’ oaov Buvaxat ptr) yecopexpta x a i ev X019 aXXot9 aroxatv. 6 Be xepi xf]9 avaptvr|aeoo9 x at pa0riaecu9
xotvouvouaa auxai ptr]8 ’ auxopLevT] opeyrjxat xou 0VX09. ’'Eaxt xauxa. Ouxouv xai Xoyo9 8 t’ U7eo 0 eaeco9 aljta9 a 7ro8 e 9 a a 0 at ei'pTjxat. eppijOrj yap 7iou ouxco9 ripaiv etvat
evxau9a f| xou 91 X006900 c|)uxf] (JtaXiaxa axipid^et xo acopta xat 9 £uyet arc’ auxou, f) cpuX'H x a i ^piv et9 atopta a 9 tx ea 0 a t, oicntep auxfj9 eaxtv r\ ouata e'xouaa xr]v
^rjxei Be auxr] xa0’ auxrjv yt'yveo0ai; Oatvexat. Tt Be Br) xa xotaSe, cL Stptfjtta; eTtcovupiav X7]v xou “ 0 eaxtv” . eyou Be xauxrjv, 6)9 epauxov 7eet0<o, ixava>9 xe x a i
Laptev xt etvat Btxatov auxo rj ouBev; Oaptev ptevxot V7] Ata. Kat au xaXov ye xt op0cl>9 a7ro8e8eypat.
xat ayaOov; flc69 8 ’ ou; “HBr] ouv iraiTcoxe xt xa>v xotouxcov X019 o9 0 aXptoi9 et8 e<;;
Ou8 apuo9 , rj B’ 6 9 . ’AXX’ aXX^ xtvi ataOrjoet x<6 v 81a xou aa>ptaxo9 £9 T|<}>a) auxaiv; Nam hie sermo mihi sine demonstratione fuit cum decentia quadam atque
Xeyco Be rcepi roxvxajv, otov pLeye0 ou9 reept, uytetai;, 10x 6 09 , xat xaiv aXXouv evt convenientia. Verum ego semper iudicavi levia esse ista verba que
Xoyco a 7tdvxcov xf]9 ouata; 0 xuxavet exaoxov ov apa 81a xou acoptaxot; auxtov xo demonstrationem faciunt per id quod decet. Et nisi quis caveat frequenter
aXrjOeaxaxov OecoTCelxat, fj toBe exet; decipiunt et in geometria et in ceteris omnibus. Sed de recordatione ac
disciplina solidis rationibus demonstratum est. Dictum est enim ita alicubi
H ere is B ru n i’s version: esse animum nostrum ante quam peruenerit ad corpus ut ipsius est essentia
habens nomen a uerbo “ esse” , quod ego opinor uere recteque demon­
Nonne igitur ex putando maxime fit aliquid sibi manifestum? Ita prorsus. stratum.
Optime autem id facit, cum nihil eum perturbat neque auditus neque visus
neque dolor neque voluptas, sed cum ipse per se quam maxime potest a cor- T h e m istranslation cum decentia for ptexa etxoxo9 , “ through analogy” , and
pore se removens nec aliquid communicans illi neque attingens veri inve-
per id quod decet for 81a xdiv etxoxcov underm ines S im m ias’ (and P lato ’s)
mendi flagrat cupiditate? Ita prorsus. Igitur et in hoc philosophi animus
maxime contemnit corpus, ab eoque aufugit queritque per se ipsum ex- point here th at analogy is not a secure m ethod of d em o n stratio n . T h e
istere? Quid vero hec o Simmia? Fatemur aliquid esse ius ipsum an nihil? m ethod of hypothesis, which Plato thinks far superior, is not clearly
Aliquid, o Socrates. Nonne bonum et honestum? Quidni? An tu igitur indicated in B ru n i’s L atin which has the vague solidis rationibus for the
eiusmodi aliquid uidisti unquam oculis? Nunquam, inquit. An alio technical term 81’ U7xo0eaeu>9 a £ ta 9 . At D 8 oSarcep au xfj9 eaxtv r| o u a ta m ust
quodam sensu comprehendisti? Loquor autem de omnibus ueluti de m ean “ ju st as surely as [its object] Being exists ” ; 1 B ru n i’s rendering,
magnitudine, de sanitate, de robore, et ut breviter comprehendam, de
ceterorum omnium essentia id est, quid unumquodque sit. Num per corpus though literal, obscures m ore th an it clarifies the nuance. o 0ev . . .
veritas eorum cernitur? ocv0pd)7toi9 at D 2 and an essential x a t at D 8 are om itted.

B ru n i’s translations of xt xu>v ovxcov, “ some B eings’’, by aliquid, and ev

xto Xoyt£ea9at, “ reaso n in g ’’, by ex putando, show a failure to grasp P la to ’s 1 See the Phaedo, ed. Loriaux, 2 vols. (Namur, 1969-1975), 2: 155.
390 PART I A PPEN D IC ES 391

At 100C lOf. B runi clearly fails to u n d e rstan d the m aterialist account practically equivalent to per impossibile, m akes it difficult to grasp the
of the cause of beauty and confounds B eauty Itself w ith instantiations of logical function of the m inor prem iss in the second arg u m en t. At 93C 5
the beautiful by a confusion of p ronouns: Socrates tem porarily en tertain s the possibility of there existing a harm ony
w ithin a h arm o n y , b u t this is obscured in the L atin by B ru n i’s omission
aXX’ eav xt? [xoi Xeyi^ 80 oxt xaXov eaxtv oxtouv, rj XP^M-a suav0ei; £X0V *1 tJX''ifLa
f) aXXo oxtouv xaiv xotouxcov, xa piv aXXa yatpeiv etu,—xapaxxopat yap ev xou; of au at C 5 and aXXrjv (appovt'av) at C 7. A false distinction is introduced
aXXot; ixaat—xouxo 8 e a 7cXd><; xai axiyyun; xai Taax; eui)0co<; e'xo> 7tap’ epauxco, into the L atin by B ru n i’s ren d erin g of avappoaxia alternately as dissonantia
oxt oux aXXo xt reoter auxo xaXov r| rj exetvou xou xaXou ei'xe itapouata ei'xe xotvoovia (93C 5) and inconcinnitas (93E 8 etc.); the phrase habet concinmtatem does
e’txe otct) 8 r) xai 07 tcu<; TCpoayevopevri. not seem adequately to convey the vital distinction betw een (the soul’s)
Verum si quis a me querat cur aliquid sit pulchrum aut cur colorem habeat “ being an a ttu n e m e n t’’ and “ p articip atin g in a ttu n e m e n t” (appovia<;
jlondum aut dignitatem aut quippiam tale, cetera quidem gaudere sino— p.£X£X£l-v> the latter a technical term ). T his leads to vulgarization at a key
turbor enim in aliis omnibus—hoc autem simpliciter et fortassis stulte point. Socrates says that a harm o n y , being a sim ple a ttrib u te, cannot p a r­
teneo, nihil aliud esse quod faciat ipsum pulchrum quam ipsius pulchri presen- ticipate in its opposite: appovta yap SfjTCou TcavxeXax; auxo xouxo ouaa,
tia sive communio sive qualiscunque assistentia. appovta, avappocm'a<; outcox’ av pexaaxot, xxX. In B runi this reduces to the
It may be of interest to follow B ru n i’s attem pts to ren d er one of the ban ality that “ a soul is not dissonant when it is not out of tu n e ” : harmonia
m ore com plicated arg u m en ts in the Phaedo, S o crates’ refutation at quidem que omnino harmonia sit, etc. T h e passage ends with a m istranslation
93A -95A of the P y thagorean theory that the soul is b ut a h arm o n y of the w hich reveals clearly that B runi did not u n d erstan d the hypothetical
physical parts o f the b o d y . 2 Socrates presents two interlocking though m ethod being em ployed th roughout the arg u m en t. Socrates concludes
logically distinct co u n terarg u m en ts: (a) th at one w ould expect a harm ony th at since the hypothesis entails an unacceptable corollary— that there is
to be (like H u m e ’s W ill) a “ slave of the passions’’, b u t we see in fact that no distinction betw een good and bad souls— , it m ust be false.
thb soul tries to do m in ate an d control the bodily appetites; and (b) that
TH xai xaXtlx; Soxei, rj 8 ’ 6<;, ouxco XeyeaOai, xai Ttaox^tv av xauxa 6 Xoyog ei
to m ain tain that the soul is a h arm o n y is ta n ta m o u n t to (absurdly) d en y ­ op0r] Tj UTtoOeati;; fjv, xo appoviav eivai; Ou8 ’ O7ccoaxiouv, ecpT).
ing that there are good and bad souls, since soul, unlike a h arm ony, does
not adm it of degrees of m ore and less, and its goodness and badness can ­ B runi translates,
not therefore be explained in term s o f a g reater or lesser p articipation in
‘Does it seem to you well said, and these things will so turn out, if we posit
attu n em en t. that the soul is a harmony?’ ‘By no means’, he said.
B ru n i’s translation of the passage (w hich in view of its length I have
postponed to the end of this section) begins by m istran slatin g com pletely In sum , B ru n i’s readers w ould have been able w ith som e difficulty to
a m ain prem iss of the first c o u n terarg u m en t: follow the general tren d of the first arg u m en t, and to grasp at least the
oux apa f]yeta0at ye rcpoarjxei appoviav xouxcov e? <Lv av auvxeOf), aXX’ ercecrOat. conclusion of the second, b u t they could not, surely, from B ru n i’s
tran slatio n form a clear ju d g e m e n t ab out the system o f entailm ents
Non igitur oportet putare ut harmoniam aliud sequatur quam ea ipsa ex w hereby Plato tries to refute the hypothesis. A nd it is plain that the con­
quibus componitur. fusion and e rro r present in the L atin version here are not the work of
A lthough the prem iss is restated correctly at 94C 4, the contradiction som eone who und erstan d s Plato b u t is consciously sim plifying for the
would be confusing an d the read er w ould be left w ondering where the sake of his audience, so m uch as of som eone who has not followed and
prem iss had been “ agreed upon e a rlie r’’. At 93B 5 f., the phrases in ’ und ersto o d P la to ’s arg u m en t.
eXaxxov xai rjxxov, erct tcXsov xai paXXov (whose m eaning has puzzled even W e m ay note in conclusion some difficulties in ren d erin g technical
rriodern scholars) is sim plified to minus an d magis, p erhaps w ithout m uch term s: xaXov is tran slated Stoically (following C icero) as honestum at 65C
loss, but the om ission of the phrase eiixep evSexexat xouxo yt'yveaOat, here an d 76D, while at 100B 6 ff. the w ord is ren d ered platonically as pulchrum.
T h e tran slatio n of ouata as essentia was probably ill-advised in view of the
precise technical m ean in g the L atin w ord had assum ed in A ristotelian
■* For a detailed treatment of this argument, which is somewhat more complicated than
utv summary here suggests, see the commentary on the Phaedo by D. Gallop (Oxford, school philosophy (though B runi m ight not have been willing to recog­
1975; repr. with corrections, 1983). nize the value of such philosophy: witness the attitu d e he displayed in his
392 PART I A PPEN D ICES 393

controversy with Alfonso of C a rta g e n a ab o u t his new translation of 93D At predixim us, inquit Socrates, nihi'lo m agis aut m inus unum
A ristotle’s Ethics). So, too, op0o<; Xoyo<; in P lato has only the non-technical esse anim um quam alterum . Hoc autem est neque m agis neque
m eaning of “ a good a c c o u n t” , not the later technical m eaning im plied plus neque m inus alteram qu am alteram esse harm o n iam . An non
by B ru n i’s translatio n recta ratio. W e have already m entioned B ru n i’s ita est?
failure to recognize \Lzxiyzw as a technical term ; he som etim es falls into M axim e.
the Same e rro r with £i8 o<;, as at 102B 1 an d 103E 3. Q uae vero neque m agis neque m inus harm o n ia sit, neque
m aiorem neque m inorem concinnitatem habet?
B runi’s translation of Phaedo, 93A -95A Ita.
Nec magis nec m inus concinna, plus an m inus, an aeque habet
Q u id autem , in q u it, o S im m ia, v id e tu r tibi vel harm oniae vel alii harm onia?
rei com positae aliter convenire esse qu am ea sint ex quibus com- Aeque.
93A ponitur? 93E Ig itu r anim us cum non magis nec m inus alius alio m inus sit, nec
N equaquam . m agis nec m inus concinnus est.
Nec aliud q u icq u am , ut ego arb itro r, pati vel agere quam ilia pa- Prorsus.
tia n tu r aut agant? H oc cum ita sit, nihil m agis harm oniae vel concinnitates habet.
Concessit. Penitus.
N on ig itur oportet p u ta re ut h a rm o n iam aliud seq u atu r qu am ea Hoc rursus cum sit, an plus virtutis vel pravitatis alter altero
ipsa ex quibus com ponitur? haberet, cum pravitas inconcinnitas, esset virtus harm onia?
C onsensit. Nihil plus.
Nullo ig itur m odo fieri potest ut in co n trariu m h arm o n ia 94A Im m o vero, o Sim m ia, secundum rectam rationem nullus
m oveatur au t sonet au t in aliquo suis p artibus adversentur. anim us pravitatem h aberet, siquidem harm o n ia foret. N am h a r­
Nullo m odo, inquit. m onia quidem que om nino harm o n ia sit inconcinnitatem num -
Q u id autem h a rm o n ia — n o n n e sic n a tu ra co m parata est ut ita sit quam habet.
h arm o n ia ut m o d u lata est? Ita est.
N on intelligo, inquit. N eque anim us qui om nino anim us esset, h aberet pravitatem .
An ne non, inquit ille, ut magis concinnata est, ita magis har- Nullo m odo, secundum ea quae dicta sunt.
93B monia est, ut m inus, ita minus? H ac igitur ratione om nes om nium anim alium anim i aeque erunt
M axim e. boni, siquidem anim i om nes aeque anim i sunt.
An ig itu r et de anim o hoc dici potest, ut m agis vel m inus alter M ihi quidem videtur, inquit, o Socrates.
altero sit anim us? A n ita videtur tibi recte dici et ev en tu ra esse haec, si ponam us
Nullo m odo, inquit. 94B anim um esse harm oniam ?
Age, inquit, dicimus nonnullum animorum sapere et virtutem N equaquam , inquit.
habere ac bonitatem, nonnullum vero desipere et ignavum esse at- Q uid autem , inquit, eorum om nium quae in hom ine sunt est
93C que pravum? An vere hoc dicimus? quicquam aliud quod tu d om inari dicas p raeter an im u m , praecipue
V ere quidem , inquit. sapientem ?
Q ui ig itur aiu n t a n im u m esse h arm o n iam , quid dicent esse in N on equidem .
anim o v irtu tem et vitium ? A n aliam q u an d am harm o n iam ac U tru m indulgentem passionibus corporis an adversantem ?
dissonantiam ? Et b o n u m q uidem an im u m m odulationem et con- V eluti si calor prem at vel sitis, ad v ersatur anim us et in contrarium
cinnitatem in se habere, cum ipse quoque sit harm o n ia, m alum trahit, ne bibat, et sim iliter in fame, ne edat, et in ceteris m ultis
vero inconcinnum esse et non habere in se aliam ? 94C videm us adversantem an im u m corpori, an non?
Nescio, inquit Sim m ias, ut tam en , puto, talia q u aedam dicerent M axim e, inquit.
qui illud defenderent. N onne igitur ante confessi sum us n u n q u am ilium , cum sit har-
 394 PART I APPEN D ICES 395

m onia, dissonare atque ad versari his q uibus in te n d itu r vel rem it­ som ething like “ ex pertise” , as in juris periti, legal experts. In this ren d er­
titu r, vel aliud q u o d cu m q u e accidat illis ex qu ib u s est constituta, ing B runi probably followed Q u in tilian {Inst. 2.15.24), w ho w ould
I verum sequi ilia, non au tem ducem esse? him self have had sim ilar m otives for softening P lato ’s tone in L atin.
C onsensim us, inquit. Som e o th er exam ples of B ru n i’s tendency to m ake Plato m ore pleasant
Q uid au tem , n o nne contra n u n c v id etu r dux esse illorum om- and polite: At 457E 3 Plato has <po(Boupat ouv 8 ieXeyxeiv FO uiw>X<x(Stk
94D nium ex q uibus dicim us eum constare, et ferm e om nibus per ou Ttpot; xo repaypa cptXovixoovxa Xeyeiv tou xaxacpaves yevea0at, aXXa repo<; ae.
om nem vitam adversari om nin o q u e d o m in ari, in terd u m graves B runi translates (V at. lat. 3348, f. 20r) “ V ereo r tam en red arg u ere ne
poenas exigens per gym nasticam atq u e m edicinam , in terd u m fortasse arb itreris m e non u t res ipse m anifesta fiat, sed tui g ratia con­
m itius pun ien s co m m in an d o atque m onendo, co n trarias form idines te n d e re .” A t 489B7-C1 B runi misses the sardonic rudeness of C allicles’
cupiditates tan q u a m alia q u aed am res contra alteram loquens, ut rem arks, tran slatin g “ H ie vir n u m q u am desistet in nugis versari. Die
H o m eru s in Odyssia facit, ubi dicit m ihi, o Socrates, tarn grandis natu no m in a uersari, ac si quis verbo ex-
cidat, beneficium putas? T his is m ild seasoning com pared w ith the rath er
P ectora castigans m onitis affatur am icis
spicy G reek: Ouxoai avrip ou reauaexai 9 Xuapa>v. tin t pot, £> £a>xpax&<;, oux
94E P erpetere, o cor, n am tu longe alias graviora
alaxovfl xt|Xixouxo<; cov ovopaxa 0T|peua>v, xai eav xu; pripaxt apapxrj, eppaiov
tulisti.
xouxo reotoupevo<;;
An tu putas H o m e ru m hec dixisse, tam q u am h a rm o n ia sit, vel T h e best exam ple o f B ru n i’s benign view of the dialogue, how ever,
aliquid tale, ut p areat corporis passionibus, non vero ut ducat com es in the fam ous speech of Callicles, the sam e speech w hich had such
d o m in e tu rq u e sitque longe d iv in io r q u am harm o n ia? a pow erful effect on the young N ietzsche. B ru n i’s ren d erin g throughout
Ita, H ercle, v id etu r m ihi, o Socrates. is w ooden and insipid, suggesting that he did not fully grasp the radical
N on ergo recte d icitu r h arm o n ia q u aed am esse an im u s. N am isto n atu re of w hat was being said. At one point in p articu lar the
95A m odo neque H om ero divino poetae neque nobis ipsis consen- m isu n d erstan d in g is m anifest. At 484D Callicles quotes some verses of
tirem us. P in d a r in support or illustration of his ethics of power:
Ita est, in q u it . 3
vopo<; 6 reavxcov PatnXeix;
Ovaxaiv xe xai dGavaxcov
B. The G orgias outo<; 8e 8f|, cpriaiv,
As Ijas been rem ark ed in A ppendix 2, B ru n i’s version of the Gorgias ay£t SixauLv to (Biaioxaxov

represents a considerable im provem ent u p o n his early versions of the U7cepxdxa x eiP^' xex p a ip o p a i
epyoiatv 'HpaxX£o<;, ered dreptaTa<;—
Phaetf.o, Crito and Apology. It does b etray a certain tendency (visible also
X£y£i ouxoj reco^— to yap a a p a oux Ereiaxapat— Xfiy£i 8 oti oute repiapfivoij ouX£
in his o th er translations) to convert q uite o rd in ary statem ents into rolling
Sovto^ tou I"1Tjpoovou riXdaaTO Ta<; (Bouq, co<; toutou ovto<; tou 8t.xat.ou ^ uoei, xai
sentektiae, an d to low er the tem p eratu re o f d eb ate by softening the radical [Bou<; xai xaXXa xxripaTa £ivai navTa tou {BeXtiovo? t£ xai xp£iTxovo^ Ta Ttuv
oppositions of interlocutors. T h e G reeks in debate w ere on the whole a X^ipovcov T£ xai tjttovouv.
nasty lot; B runi, if he were aw are of w hat he was doing (w hich is d o u b t­
ful), m ust have thought G reek m an n ers in this respect unedifying. (‘Law is the king of all mortals and immortals,’ and this law, he says, ‘acts
A h exam ple of this softening tendency has already been noted in vol. to render just the most violent deed with its prepotent hand. I prove this
1 , nam ely, his tran slatio n o f eputeipia xtq (S o crates’ pejorative description by the deeds of Hercules, when, unbought’ —he says something like this,
of rhetoric as no art, but a m ere “ k n ack ” ) as peritia quaedam; the L atin I don’t remember exactly—he says that Hercules drove away the cattle of
Geryon without gift or payment, this being natural justice, that cattle and
has m uch m ore com p lim en tary overtones th an the G reek, m eaning all other possessions of the weaker and inferior belong to the better and
stronger.)
Vat. lat. 9491, If. 29r-30r, copied by Giovanni Aretino in 1414, collated with Vat.
lat. 3348, If. 116v-117v, a manuscript copied by Piero Strozzi around 1440-50. The T h e frank im m oralism of this seems to have been too m uch for B runi,
quotation from Homer is Od. XX. 17-19. for he renders:
 396 PART I A PPENDICES 397

iubi ait legem omnium esse reginam mortalium atque immortalium, eam- to have had a p articu lar h o rro r of hom osexual behavior, as m ay be
que ius agere violenter prepotenti manu; idque coniectare se dicit ex rebus gauged from the ending of the Isagogicon (ed. Schriften, pp. 40-41).
gestis ab Hercule qui neque emptas neque donatas Gerionis boues abegit, In the sum m ary B runi com poses of an erotic passage at 253C -256E ,
|ut ipso iure naturae dictante et boues et cetera omnia quae possidemus illius
esse debere qui melior sit ac potentior. we can see that he has not only not grasped the general im port of the
passage, b ut has taken the opportunity to insert some gratuitous
B rudi thus trivializes a N ietzschean radicalism into w hat is virtually a m oralizing:
platitude: “ Law does right violently w ith p repotent h a n d ’’, and “ all
things which h u m an beings possess ought to belong to the m an who is Quamlibet uero animam ab initio trifariam diuisimus: due equorum forme,
due quedam species, auriga uero tertia. Equorum uero alter bonus, alter
m ore o u tstan d in g and effective’’, as th ough to say “ Law requires over­ non. Bonus forma rectus et articulatim distinctus, ardua ceruice, nitido col-
w helm ing pow er to protect the rig h t’ ’, and “ V irtu eju stifies the possession ore, nigris oculis, argutis naribus, honoris appetens cum temperantia et
of goods’’. pudore, promptus cohortatione solum et ratione regitur. Alter intortus et
VVe m ay note in conclusion an obvious case of bow dlerization. At multiplex breui atque rigenti collo, fusco colore, oculis cesiis, inglorius,
4 8 i t ) , Socrates describes his own an d C allicles’ besotted passion for their contumax, uix flagello stimulisque obtemperans. Cum ergo aurige obiec-
tum aliquid quod in cupiditatem sui pelliceat, tunc qui inobediens est
lovers, A lcibiades and Pyrilam pes, linking this passion w ith th eir other equorum petulantia fretus, neque stimulis neque habenis neque uerberibus
“ loves’’, S ocrates’ love for philosophy, and C allicles’ for the A thenian coherceri potest, sed exultat ac uiolentia delatus coniunctum sibi equum
demos: Xeyco 8’ £vvor|cra? oxt eyco x£ xai au vuv xuyx<xvo(ji.£v tauxov xt 7X£tcov0 6 x£?, aurigamque perturbat et rapit, donee aurigam se ipsum damnans ac respi-
epcovxe 8uo ovxe 8uoiv £xdx£po?, eycu pev ’AXxi(3icx8ou xe xou KXetviou xat. ciens frenos incutit atque os impurum linguamque diuerberans sistere
cptXoaocpta?, au 8e 8uoIv, xou xt ’A07]vatoov Srjpou xat xou riupiXafiTrou?, xxX. tandem temperareque compellit. Atque ut quisque in alicuius comitatu luit,
ita ilium hie quantum ualet imitatur et colit et ea que ab illo sunt deo affec-
B runi (M S cit., f. 34v) no d o u b t th o u g h t this to be am ong “ the m any tat et agit. A Ioue quidem philosophi et reges, ab Apolline item, et in arte
things in P la to ’s works abhorrentes a nostris monbus” , for he simplifies: sua cuiusque opera qui in illorum cetu fuerunt imitantur.
“ A nim adverto autem et me et te n unc eadem pad. D uo enim cum sim us
duos am am us, ego philosophiam , tu p o p u lu m A th en ien sem ” , etc. A n am using instance of the struggle w ithin a h u m an ist breast between
the au th o rity of the ancients and the desire for originality is afforded by
B ru n i’s surreptitious use of a passage of the Phaedrus also translated by
C . The Phaedrus
C icero. B runi is not willing sim ply to reproduce this version, yet cannot
In the Phaedrus, how ever, B ru n i’s m oral censorship leads him to b rin g him self to use a m arkedly different vocabulary from C icero’s—
wholesale changes which cut m uch d eep er th an in the Gorgias. W e shall w ith the notable exception of immortale for dcOdvaxo?, w hich was both m ore
give here som e characteristic exam ples. precise and m ore theologically palatable.
At 227C w here Plato has: yeypacpe yap 8 t] 6 Auat'a? 7X£tpd)(j.£v6 v xiva xd>v
xaXdiv, oux utt’ ipaaxou 8 i xxX. B runi has only: “ S cripserat enim Lysias
C icero, Tusc. 1.23.53f. [T] = Rep. 6.25.27 [R ],
non pro am ato re quidem . P lato, at 228D : xr)v pivxot Stavotav ax&8 ov
a^avxcov, ot? £cpr] 8 tacp£p£tv xa xou ipaivxo? r) xa xou prj iv x£9 aXatot? xxX. Nam quod semper movetur aeternum est: quod autem motum adfert alicui
Bruni: “ S ententias tam en fere o m n iu m teneo, quas referre p er ordinem quodque ipsum agitatur aliunde, quando finem habet motus, vivendi finem
habeat necesse est. Solum igitur quod se ipsum [sese R] movet, quia num-
p e rg o .” At 237B:
quam deseritur a se, numquam ne moveri quidem desinit. Quin etiam
’Hv ouxu) 8r] xai?, paXXov 8e petpaxtaxo?, paXa xaXo?- xouxop 8e fiaav epaaxai ceteris quae moventur, hie fons, hoc principium est movendi. Principii
rtavu xoXXoi. ei? 8e xt? auxcuv aipuXo? rjv, o? ouSevo? rjxxov epcov ereexetxei xdv [Principio R] autem nulla est origo, nam e [ex R] principio oriuntur omnia:
itaiSa (L? oux ipipT]- xat xoxe auxov aixaiv txeiQev xoux’ atixo, oj? p7] eptuvxt xpo ipsum autem nulla ex re alia nasci potest: nec enim esset id [id esset R]
xou epdivxo? 8eot xapt'CeaOat, xxX. principium quod gigneretur aliunde: quod si numquam oritur, ne occidit
quidem umquam. Nam principium extinctum nec ipsum ab alio renascetur
Erat qui suadere vellet non amanti potius quam amanti gratificandum. nec a [ex R] se aliud creabit: siquidem necesse est a principio oriri omnia.
Ita fit, ut motus principium ex eo sit, quod ipsum a se movetur; id autem
Throughout his version B runi uses the sexually neutral participle amans nec nasci potest, nec mori: vel concidat omne caelum omnisque natura con-
instead ot amator to conceal the hom osexuality of the lovers. B runi seems sistat necesse est, nec vim ullam nanciscatur qua primo impulsa moveatur.
 398 PART I A PPE N D IC ES 399

Cum pateat igitur aeternum id esse, quod a se ipso moveatur, quis est qui Cum flumen transiturus essem, demonium et solitum fieri signum mihi fac­
hanc naturam animis esse tributam neget? Inanimum est enim omne, quod tum est, et vocem audire visus sum que abire me vetat prius quam ex-
pplsu agitatur externo; quod autem est animal, id motu cietur interiore et piauerim. (Vat. lat. 3348, f. 7r)
silo; nam haec est propria natura animi atque vis, quae si est una ex om­
nibus quae se ipsa moveat, neque nata certe est et aeterna est. (2) At 248C he disguises the dangerously un -C h ristian doctrine that
N ecessity controls the fate of souls in the afterlife by pu ttin g m erely regula
Phdr. 245C-246A, interprete Aretino:
for ©eapo<; ’ASpaaxetai;, though it is possible that he did not know that
Quod enim semper movetur immortale est, quod vero aliud movet cessationem A d rastia was the O rphic nam e for Necessity.
hibens motus, cessationem habet vite. ... Solum igitur quod se ipsum movet, (3) Finally, in the sam e passage, Plato describes how the soul through
quia numquam se deserit numquam cessat moveri. Quin etiam aliis quot moventur
hit est Jons et pnncipium movendi. Pnncipium autem sine ortu est. Ex principio palingenesis gradually descends from the best sort of life, that of the lover
epirn necesse est omne quod gignitur oriri, ipsum autem ex nullo. Nam si prin- o f w isdom and beauty, dow n to the w orst, that of the ty ran t. T h e second-
cipium ex alio oriretur, non esset principium. Cum vero sit absque ortu et best life is th at of the 3 acriXsu<; evvopoq p TCoXeptxo*; xai apxtx°4> “ a ^aw "
absque interitu fit necesse est. Nam si principium interiret, neque ipsum un- ab id in g king, w arrior, or ru le r .” B runi translates rex legitimus aut princeps
quam ex alio neque aliud ex alio neque aliud ex ipso nasceretur, siquidem civitatis. D id the om ission of the w arrio r have anything to do with B ru n i’s
ex principio omnia oriantur oportet. Si ergo principium motus est quod se
ipsum movet, hoc autem neque mori neque nasci potest. Vel omne celum ommsque consistent h atred and opposition to w arfare?
natura concidat consistatque necesse est nec amplius unquam constare possit
unde motum nacta oriatur. Cum ergo appareat immortale esse quod se ip­
sum mouet, animi substantiam et rationem: hoc ipsum qui dixerit non D . The Sym posium .
erubescet. Omne enim corpus quod foris movetur inanime est, quod intus ex As was noted in volum e 1, this translation was probably undertaken to
se ipso animatum, tamquam ea sit natura animi. Quod si ita est, ut non
sit aliud quicquam quod se ipsum moueat preter animum, necessario fit ut defend poor S ocrates’ rep u tatio n against the criticism s of T raversari and
sit ingenitus et immortalis. others. T h e “ tran slatio n ” in fact is so far from the G reek that it hardly
represents the Platonic text at all; it is best considered a piece d ’occasion,
B runi im proves slightly on C icero by including som e L atin for 4>ux"n<; p arap h rased at m ost from the Symposium.
ouatav xe xai Xoyov, w hich C icero h ad o m itted , and by tran slatin g H ere is B ru n i’s version of the seduction scene (217A 2 - 2 19E 5):
avdcyx^ w ith necessario, instead of C ic e ro ’s w eak certe. H e repairs C icero ’s Equidem iam quodam tempore, o uiri conuiuae, magnum aliquid et
m istranslation of et yap ex xou apx7) ytyvoixo, oux av exi apx^l yiyvoixo, “ if mirificum de me ipso ac de formositate mea sapiebam. Ardebam uero
a beginning cam e from an y th in g it w ould no longer be a b eg in n in g ” . In discendi cupiditate. Non dicerem ea que dicturus sum, nisi apud eos con-
uiuas loquerer, quos semper quasi uesano quodam Philosophiae furore cor-
his velrsion o f 7tav yap acupa, q> piv elfcoQev xo xtvelaGai, ac[>oxov, to 8 e ev8 o0 ev
reptos, baccantesque conspexi Phaedros, Agathones, Thrasymachos,
auxto auxoo, ep.c[>uxov, co<; xauxr]<; ouar]<; cpuaeax; c^ux^S he is seem ingly m ore Pausanias, Aristodemos, Aristophanes, Socratem denique ipsum et ceteros.
literal, b u t actually misses the philosophical p oint, w hich C icero had Haec enim nisi sauciis eodemque modo affectis narranda non essent. Quare
seen. > uos audientes michi ueniam dabitis pro his quae tunc a me facta et nunc
T h e re are, finally, som e instances w here one suspects B runi of trying dicta fuerint. Famuli autem, et si quis alter adsit prophanus et agrestis
nimium forte, aures obturent. Ego igitur astrictus uehementiori philoso­
consciously to im prove P la to ’s th in k in g , th o u g h it rem ains possible that phiae morsu et, siue cor siue animum siue quomodocunque id appellandum
som e |at least are m erely pious m isread in g s. Som e exam ples: sit, saucius cupiditate in philosophia sermonum qui occupant magna uio-
(1) It will be rem em b ered th at G io v an n i D om inici in his Lucula Noctis lentia iuuenilem animum neque dimittunt cum semel momorderint com-
(vol. i, p. 38) h ad said S o crates’ obedience to a d em o n proved, according pelluntque ad quicquid tandem sit faciendum atque dicendum, illud unum
to capon law, th at he was a heretic. A t 242 B-C of the Phaedrus, where enixissime conandum mihi proposueram quomodo Socratem ad explendam
hanc mei animi cupiditatem mihi adiutorem quam coniunctissimum face-
Socrates m entions his daimonion, B ru n i excises the p h rase th at suggests
rem. Itaque totis ut ita dixerim castris illi insidiatus sum et forma et diuitiis
S ocrates’ obedience to it: et omnifariam illecebris quibus promoueri homines solent. Pudet me
referre quas illi insidias tetenderim, quam ingeniose, quam efficaciter,
0
' H v t x ’ i'j x e X X o v , ( L y a O e , x d v T t o x a p o v o i a ^ a i v t i v , x o S a i p t m o v x e x a i t o e u o o<; quam uel dissimulanter uel aperte. Denique cuncta expertus nihil unquam
a p p e io v p o i y t y v e a S a i e ye ve xo — aei 8e pe o a v p i X X t o 7 tp<xxxeiv— x a t xtva proficere ualui. Nam opibus aut diuitiis ne ipse quidem multum sperabam
cp«ovpv e 'S o ^ a a o x o O e v a x o u a a t , p p e o o x e a a 7 u e v a i x p i v a v a c p o a ic o a o jp a t . ilium posse deflecti. Neque forma ceterisque illecebris quibus ego maxime

m
400 PART I

fidebam in aliquo unquam deflecti sanctitas eius et integritas potuit,

hominemque plane totum intus prospexi atque intuitus sum pretiosissimam
illius elfigiem mirabili stupendaque sanctimonia preditam occulentemque A P PE N D IX 4
ipcundis uerbis internam mentis animique severitatem. Itaque licet ab eo
spretus atque contemptus viderer, perseueraui tamen in eius amicitia, sa-
pientiam, constantiam et integritatem hominis obstupescens, uirum talem T H E T R A N S L A T IO N S O F T H E E U T H Y P H R O
rictu s qualem me reperturum esse nullum credideram. (Mehus, 2 : 7 3 - 7 4 ). BY R IN U C C IO A R E T IN O A N D F R A N C E S C O F IL E L F O
T lie passage has only a very loose relationship to the G reek, and
T h e heights and depths of Fifteenth century hum anistic translations are
B ruhi, in d ep artin g from the G reek text, has used the occasion to insert
m easured betw een the two pre-F icinian renderings of the Euthyphro m ade
gratuitous praise of S o crates’ sanctitas, integritas, severitas and sapientia.
by R inuccio and Filelfo. A b rief com parison of the two m ay therefore
B runi seems equally em b arrassed at rep o rts of S ocrates’ flute-playing,
serve as som e d eterren t to the facile generalities often u ttered regarding
probably because of the h o rro r o f p ag an sym posia expressed frequently
the vices or virtues of R enaissance translators as a class.
by thp C h u rch F athers. H ence auXrjxifc at 215B et passim has becom e can-
T h e Euthyphro offers less of a Field for philosophical error than some
tator\ cpauXr) auXqxpu;, “ som e little flu te-g irl” , becomes alter quis; and utco
other dialogues, b ut even here R inuccio m anages to disgrace himself.
tcov auXepaxojv, a cantu. Socrates is p erm itted to salute the S un, cum iam
T h e distinction, im p o rtan t to the Socratic dialogues, betw een the ques­
solem nascentem salutauisset at 220D , not to pray to it, upoaeuijap.evo<; x£>
tion t c o I o v xt eaxiv an d xt eaxiv is missed (e.g. at 4C: “ quid ais pium esse
et im p iu m ” , and 6 A “ Q u id dicis esse san ctu m ? ) ; 1 term inology is confus­
ingly rendered (e.g. at 6 E, R inuccio renders de; exeiv7]v dTtoPXercoov xai
Xpaipevos auxfj rcapaSetypaxt as earn inspiciens atque ilia pro speculo utens) ; 2
R inuccio does not ap parently follow the distinction Socrates m akes at
10A betw een the object of some experience and the act of experiencing
for he translates, e .g ., oiixouv xai tpiXoupevov xi eaxiv, xat xouxou exepov xo
cpiXouv; as Igitur amabile num est aliud quam quod amaturP3
In o th er respects too the translation is no rem arkable piece of scholar­
ship. A lthough he translates ad sententiam ( “ Platonis dialogum de cultu
deorum e G raecia trad u x i in L atium , eo habitu ut non am plius appareat
graecu s” ), his L atin style is poor, and he m erely transliterates a n u m b er
of technical term s, like Si'xr) (trial) and y p a ^ (indictm ent); Buoxeiv pro­
secute, and tpeuyeiv, to be a defendant, he translates by persequi and se
defendere instead of the pro p er classical equivalents actor and reum esse.
T h ere are a n u m b e r of lexical and syntactical m istakes (e.g. ify\Yr\xv&,
“ priest concerned w ith questions of bloodguiltiness” he translates
quaestor), and a general w oodenness in dealing w ith the lively dialogic in­
terchanges (he m isses, for exam ple, S ocrates’ irony in saying he is a
TCOiTiTTji; 9e<5>v by his tran slatio n fingere novos deos). In o th er passages the
pagan 0eoi is C h ristian ized to Deus, even in one place ( 8 C ) where the
singular m akes nonsense of S o crates’ statem ent (the key proposition in
his elenchus) that the gods w ar am ong them selves. H is attem p t to cobble

' Filelfo has “ Quale quid pium esse dicis?”

2 Filelfo has “ quo ad illam respectans utensque exemplari.”
3 Filelfo has “ Ergo et amatum quid est et huius aliud amans.”
 402 PART I APPEN D ICES 403

together from a few bits o f evidence an account o f the historical cir­ [Trans. Rinuccio:] Audient si quod dices placuerit. Tunc te dicentem ac-
curatius audiam, et mihi prospiciam quod si ab Euthyphrone didicero
cum stances lead in g up to the dialogue is clever b u t w ro n g .4 All in all, the
omnes deos putare hanc dicam [ 8 ( x t ]v graece] esse iustam, certe scientia quid
perform ance is far below the best w ork of his co n tem p o raries B runi, sit iustum ac scelestum, quid ut patet [pater ms.} deo est infestum, et, ut
G u arin o and Filelfo.5 supra est diffinitum, quid sanctum sit et quid non sit et quid deo carum et
Filelfo, by co n trast, writes a m ost elegant L atin an d conveys accu rate­ quid non. [Oxford, Balliol College MS 131, f. 26r]
ly, on the w hole, the force of particles an d the subtleties o f the G reek
Filelfo is intelligent and consistent in his choice of technical vocabulary
verb. U nlike R inuccio he shows his fam iliarity w ith G reek ju d icial p ro ­
(.species being given everyw here for el8o<j, ydea for tSea, and substantia for
cedure by an accurate translation o f term inology. T w o hexam eters of
oucna), and does not C hristianize or transliterate technical term s w ithout
Stasinus (fr. 20) which Socrates had q u o ted w ithout identifying the
explanation as does R inuccio. A nd the translations of the three Platonic
au th o r are a ttrib u te d to “ S tacen u s” by Filelfo, ap p aren tly on the basis
letters are equally good, as m ay be ju d g ed from their texts as edited
of A thenaeus 15.682E or a scholion,6 an d tran slated into hexam eters:
below [T ext 29]. It is surprising that Filelfo seems not to have published
Zfjva 8e xov epijavxa xat o<; xa8e Ttavx’ ecpuxeuaev, either of these versions, w hich could only have enhanced his reputation
oux eQeXeic eiireiv- I'va yap 8eo^ evOa xai acSaxj. as a scholar, b u t if my hypothesis as to their date is correct (A pp. 5), it
[Euth. 12B] m ay be th at they were casualties of Filelfo’s hasty retreat from Florence
upon the re tu rn of the M edici in ’34.
Quodque opifex rerum tulit omnia Iuppiter noles
Dicere; nam pudor est ubi contigit esse timores.
[MS Vallicellianus C 87]

R inuccio had not recognized the lines as poetry at all, an d had m ade hash
of th e 'tra n sla tio n . A no th er striking instance o f Filelfo’s su p eriority is of­
fered by a g ram m atically com plicated passage w here Socrates addresses
him self in direct discourse; R inuccio seem s to have m issed the point en ­
tirely.
(9C) EQ. ’AXX’ axoiiaovxai, edv7cep eu 8oxfj<; Xeyetv. xo8e 8e aoo evevorjaa apa
X£yovxo<;, xai repoc; epauxov axonco' ei oxi paXiaxa pe Eu0u9pa>v SiSaijeiev co<; oi
Gaol arcavxec; xov xoiouxov 0avaxov f|yoovxai aSixov etvai, xt paXXov eycb pepaOrixa
rtdp’ Eii0 U9 povo^, x( irox’ eaxiv xo oaiov xe xai xo avomov; 0eoptcje<; pev yap xooxo
x4 epyov, ax; eoixev, etr] a v aXXa yap ou xouxco ecpavr] apxi cupiapeva xo oatov xai
xo yap 0eopia0i; ov xai 0eocpiXe<; 0 9 <xvti.

[Trans. Filelfo:] Verum audient, modo bene dice< n s> uideare: hoc
aptem colloquente te mihi in mentem uenit, et mecum ipse reputo, “ Si
qpam maxime docuit me Euthyphron deos omnis huiusmodi mortem in-
ipstam esse censere, nihil sum tamen ab Euthyphrone doctus magis quid
utique est et fas et nefas. Nam profecto odiosum diis opus hoc ut uidetur
e$set. Neque propterea diffinita nuper appareant et fas et nefas. Nam diis
exosum, idem apparet amabile diis.’’ [MS Vallicellianus C 87]

4 See the argument, printed by Lockwood, pp. 106-107.

s For other remarks on Rinuccio’s translations, see vol. 1, p. 88-89.
* See Greene, Scholia Platonica, p. 3, ad loc.; as Filelfo quotes Athenaeus in the De mor.
disc., it is possible he identified the text from that source.
 APPEN D ICES 405

Pizolpasso, the A rchbishop of M ilan (d. 1443).3 But Pizolpasso became

acquainted with Filelfo only after the form er’s retu rn to M ilan from the
APPENDIX 5
C ouncil of Basel in O ctober of 1439. If, as seems likely, the texts were
copied into Pizolpasso’s zibaldone only after the tim e w hen he and Filelfo
T H E D A T E S O F F IL E L F O ’S T R A N S L A T IO N S O F P L A T O
had becom e acquainted, the date of transcription m ust be som etim e be­
tween O ctober of 1439 and S eptem ber 13, 1440, the latter being the date
It appears that the only m ention in Filelfo’s works of his Platonic tran sla­
of an o th er text w hich was copied after the three Platonic letters.4 T his of
tions comes in an oration against C osim o d e ’ M edici, w ritten in 1436
course gives us only the terminus ante quem for the translation itself. But
fk>m Siena, w hither Filelfo had fled following the M edici coup in 1434.1
I Find it im probable that Filelfo would have begun a new translation of
Ih the course of his attack on C osim o, Filelfo tells us that, while still in
the Letters in Florence, thus p u ttin g him self in direct com petition with
Florence, he had begun to translate “ quaed am plato n ica” . F inding the
L eonardo B runi, whom at that tim e Filelfo still considered his friend and
codex he had been offered too m endacious, he had tried to consult a n ­
ally against Niccolo Niccoli. L ater, after B runi had sold out (in Filelfo’s
other belonging to R oberto R ossi, b u t was unable to do so as this codex
view) to the M edici, their relations were less co rd ial.5 A nd the cir­
had been stolen by Poggio, who had escaped justice through the influence
cum stances of transm ission suggest, in fact, that the renderings were
of C osim o .2 W e can discount the accusations of stealing and obstruction
of justice against Poggio and C osim o, but there is no reason why Filelfo
should have invented the story of h aving begun to translate “ certain
Platonic w ritin g s.” 3 On the Archbishop and his library, see Paredi (q.v.); Fubini (1966); and vol. I, p.
1251". The contents of this zibaldone attest to the Archbishop's strong interest in Plato,
But which of Filelfo’s two versions from Plato were these “ Platonic which he shared with his friend Nicholas of Cusa.
w ritin g s” ? D espite the plural, I believe this rem ark m ust refer to the + The texts occur on ff. 185r-186r, in the same hand as another text which continues
Euthyphro ra th e r than to the three Letters. T h e Letters survive in two m a n u ­ into the next gathering, in which gathering is also transcribed a funeral oration of
Filelfo’s dated ‘‘Mediolani in templo divi Ambrosii, Idibus Sept. MCCCCXL” . The no­
scripts, of which the earlier (A m bros. M 4 sup.) belonged to Francesco tations “ Translatio Philelphi” next to each letter may be in the hand of Filelfo himself.
5 In his Commentationes Jlorentinae de exilio (ed. Garin, Prosaton tatini del Quattrocento
[Milan, 1952], pp. 498-500) Filelfo, with a certain contempt, dared the politic Bruni to
take sides in the factional struggle. Bruni did not reply, at least directly, but in 1436 he
1 Filelfb’s letters, normally so useful in chronicling his literary activities, do not help wrote to the Sienese, in the name of the Florentine Signoria, a letter about his former
us in this case; as the letters are far more sparse for Filelfo’s pre-Milanese period, the friend which casts an interesting light on the “ fifteenth-century Winston Churchill” (in
absence of any reference to the Plato translations in itself suggests an early date. I have Frederick H a m ’s phrase). I give the text from the register in ASF Signori, Missive, la
consulted the 1502 edition of Filelfo’s letters, containing 37 books of his correspondence, Cancelleria, vol. 35, f. 93r-v. “ Senensibus. Magnifici domini, fratres karissimi: Ex rela­
Legrand, Cent-dix lettresgrecques, and the famous Trivulzianus MS 873, containing the col­ tione nobis facta per dominum Antonium militem curialem Palatii nostri, qui fuit Senis
lection of 48 books of letters made by Filelfo before his death. Prof. Vito R. Giustiniani, in proxima festivitate Beate Marie Virginis, percepimus modos inhonestos atque nefarios
who is preparing an edition of the Trivulzianus codex, kindly informs me that he knows qui tenentur per exules nostros in vestra civitate Senarum. De quibus quidem modis ipse
of no other letters which mention the Plato versions. The possibility cannot be excluded dominus Antonius dicit querelam fecisse apud Magnificentias Vestras et per ipsam
that the translations are mentioned somewhere else in the hundreds of other manuscripts magnificentiam fraterne atque benigne provisum fuisse turn per cassationem Filelfi turn
containing letters of Filelfo. per alias opportunas provisiones. Agimus ergo gratias Magnificis Vestris pro tarn sincero
2 The relevant passage, from Ambros. V 10 sup., f. llr-v, is quoted by A. Calderini, fraternoque affectu, hortamurque eas ut considerare velint moram exulum nostrorum in
“ Ricerche intorno alia biblioteca e alia cultura greca di Francesco Filelfo,” Studi italiani civitate vestra nihil aliud moliri quam ut scandala et seditiones et discordias serant.
di filologia classica 20 (1913): 204-424 at 359, note 3: “ Institueram etiam, si sobrium Abscisa fuit manus viri per operam exulum nostrorum falso pretextu et calumpnioso
hopinem (i.e. Poggio] offendissem ab eodem mutuum petere platonicum libellum quen- quasi Cosmus de Medicis eum in perniciem Filelfi destinasset. Scimus quam equus fuit
dam. Nam quaedam platonica vertere ad nostros ceperam sed quoniam non satis emen- rector qui ilium condemnavit et quibus de causis movetur ad ista facienda, et quantum
dafus codex mihi oblatus esset, emendatiorem quaerebam. Ac monuerat me familiaris odium nostre civitatis in corde gerit ex ilia benemerita cassatione sua Florentie facta.
quidam eruditissimusque vir [probably Bruni or Palla Strozzi] platonicum quendam Quasi vero Cosmus quicquam extimet Filelfum, aut sua intersit an ille vivat vel
codicem, quern Robertus Russus quam emendatissime exarasset, apud Bambalionem moriatur, aut curet an ille in mundo sit uel non sit, aut non gentiles habeat uel agnatos
[Filelfo s name tor Poggio] asservari, qua re si ilium ullo pacto habere possem nihil essem numerosos quorum unusquisque per se Filelfum contemnere ac despicere posset! Hec igi-
arrtplius desideraturus. Verum id difficillimum fore, quoniam Poggius ex ipsius Roberti tur quo magis sunt aliena a vero magisque calumniosa et falsa, eo possunt magis indigna-
adjiuc vivi bibliotheca eiusmodi opus clam surripuisset. Ob id quidem olim furti a Rober­ tionem commovere. Speramus ergo in sapientia vestra quod, quemadmodum incepit,
to arcessitum, sed auxilio Cosimi Medicis et aliorum quorundam suorum collusorum et provisionem adhibebit talem, qua huiusmodi inconvenientia de cetero evenire non
facinorosorum hominum iudicium effugisse.” poterunt in civitate vestra, de quo nobis faciet gratiam singularem. Datur die XX
Augusti 1436.”
406 PART I A P P E N D IC E S 407

m ade expressly for Pizolpasso, who is know n to have consulted Filelfo on the tran slatio n , it w ould help explain why Filelfo never published so ex­
other scholarly m a tte rs.6 cellent a version, for we know th at the sudden retu rn of the M edici forced
T h e Euthyphro, on the o th er h a n d , h ad not yet been translated by Filelfo to escape precipitately from Florence, leaving behind m any of his
anyone at the tim e Filelfo was in F lorence, and w ould have suited very books.
well the know n interests of Filelfo’s chief p atro n d u rin g his Bolognese If these hypotheses are accepted, the likeliest date for Filelfo’s transla­
and Florentine periods, the Blessed N iccolo A lbergati, A rchbishop of tion of the Euthyphro is then “ a ro u n d 1430’’, and the best date for his
B olbgna.7 T h e dialogue is not listed am o n g the G reek works of Plato ren d erin g of the three Platonic letters is “ 1439/1440” .
Filelfo brou g h t back w ith him from C o n sta n tin o p le,8 a circum stance
which, taken togeth er w ith the rep o rt o f his h aving had to borrow a codex
to translate his quaedam platonica, again suggests that the Euthyphro version rections and variants. It is thus likely that the manuscript comes from Filelfo’s early scrip­
belongs to his F lorentine period. A nd the paleographical evidence in any torium and represents the Bolognese/Florentine period of his studies.
casej points to a date of aro u n d 1430 for the single surviving m anuscript Filelfo is nowhere mentioned in the codex as the translator of the Euthyphro, which is
why, one must suppose, Adam omitted it from his catalogue of Filelfo manuscripts. But
of the versio n .9 If we accept a date d u rin g Filelfo’s F lorentine period for the attribution is perfectly secure: (1) because of the authorial variants which are in the
same hand as those in the Chrysostom text securely attributed to Filelfo, (2) because the
work is mentioned in the autograph catalogue of Filelfo’s works in Milan, Archivio di
6 See for instance the latter’s Epistolae, ed. N. S. Meuccius (Florence, 1743), 1: Stato, Autograft 127, 3, Serie I (“ Platonis Eutyphron, de religioso et pio” ), and (3)
208-209 and 214-215 (both dated 1440). The only other manuscript is from Viterbo (Cat. because the long commonplace in the preface, lines 1-14, “ Solebant prudentes viri” ,
A, nf>. 384) and was written in the third quarter of the fifteenth century. Bruni’s transla­ etc., is translated almost word-for-word in an Italian letter (undated) written by Filelfo
tion of the Letters was known to Decembrio about this time (see Appendix 8D) but it may to Nicodemo Tranchedini in MS Rice. 152, ff. I99v-200r, edited by Adam, p. 433f.
not have yet come under Pizolpasso’s notice, or he may have found it simpler for some
reasdn to consult Filelfo.
7 On Albergati, see D B l 1:619-621; for his scholarly interests, see Bruni’s Vita
Anstotehs , also dedicated to him, in Bruni, Schriften , pp. 41-49. Filelfo’s relationship with
Albergati is described in a letter Filelfo wrote to Marco Aurelio Filelfo, dated Milan, 3
October 1475 (Trivulz. 873, f.503v): “ ...E t ut rem apertius teneas, permagna mihi
famjliaritas consuetudoque fuit cum uiro illo et sancto et sapienti Nicolao Albergato car-
dinali Bononiensi apud quern quandiu fuit in vivis. ... Pro mea igitur in Nicolaum Car-
dinalem benivolentia pietateque opuscula quattuor quae per idem tempus ex graecis
latirje fari docuissem, ad eum eodem codice dono dedi Xenophontis duo, quorum altero
respqblica Lacedaemoniorum, altero autem Agesilai regis laudatio contineretur, et duo
item ex Plutarcho Cheronensi opuscula, quorum alterum Lycurgi ipsius, et alterum
Nurhae vitas duas illas amplecterentur . ..” The dedicatory epistle (Text 28) does not
name the dedicatee, but it is clearly addressed to a high ranking prelate. See also Adam,
p. 150. A discussion of the meaning of the word “ religio” appears several times in
Filelfo’s correspondence with Albergati in 1431, so it would have been a natural time for
him to have translated for his patron Plato’s dialogue ‘‘De religioso et pio” .
8 'See Calderini. “ Ricerche,” p. 217, quoting a letter of 1427 to Traversari. The letter
doe$ mention a “ Proclus in Platonem” (probably the same codex lent to Vittorino da
Feltre together with a Timaeus Locrus, mentioned in a letter of 1450 in Filelfo [1502],
f. 4$v) and “ Platonis et multorum ex veteribus philosophis epistolae.” Filelfo’s posses­
sion of a codex containing Plato’s letters makes it the more unlikely that he could have
beep speaking of that translation in the oration of 1436 quoted in note 1, above, where
he ipeaks of having been “ offered” a codex containing Plato to translate from.
9 Rome, Bibl. Vallicelliana C 87, ff. 35r-47v (Cat A, no. 255). The manuscript is writ­
ten in a single semigothic hand throughout, of a type which is commonly found through­
out Northern Italy in the first third of the Quattrocento. Ff. 1-34 contain Filelfo’s
trarislation of Dio Chrysostom’s oration “ Ad Ilienses” , with a letter of transmission to
Leqnardo Bruni and the date, “ Ex Bononia, Idibus Juniis, M CCCCXXVIII,” on 1.
34r. This is surely the date of composition rather than the date of transcription (see
Brqni’s Ep. V.3 [V.6| and Luiso, p. 108), and the hand of the manuscript is nothing like
Filelfo’s own. Yet the manuscript contains a number of what appear to be authorial cor-

mm
 A PPENDICES 409

T h u s far, D ati would seem to be a wholly unrem arkable specim en of

the hum anist type, b u t there are a few individual features. H e was, for
APPENDIX 6 instance, far better acquainted with medieval theology th an was com m on
am ong Q u attro cen to hum anists, showing a particularly wide knowledge
A G O S T IN O D A T I’S V E R S IO N O F T H E P S E U D O -P L A T O N IC of the great thirteen th century D om inicans, St. T h o m as A quinas and
H A L C Y O N A N D R E N A IS S A N C E S K E P T IC IS M A lbert the G reat; there is evidence to suggest, indeed, that he studied
theology inform ally at a D om inican house of studies.3 H is psychological
Agqstino D ad (1420-1478) of S iena is a figure deserving of m ore study doctrine shows that he was heavily influenced by A lbert the G re a t’s
than he has h ith erto rec e iv e d ,1 but as he translated only a single pseudo- platonizing doctrine of the soul.4 But his philosophical position as a whole
platonic dialogue, o u r in terest in him here m ust be lim ited. A child p ro ­ bears little resem blance to T hom ism or A lbertism . In fact, like m any
digy, D ati becam e in the end a com piler and a polym ath, m astering (ac­ later polym aths, he was som ething of a skeptic when it cam e to philoso­
cording to the eulogies of his son Nicholas) logic, theology and phy; G arin has called him a forerunner of G ianfrancesco Pico della
ju risp ru d en ce in ad dition to the usual hum anistic studies. H e learnt M ira n d o la .5 Like certain opponents of pagan philosophy, he was inclined
G reek with Francesco Filelfo d u rin g the la tte r’s exile in Siena to oppose the levitas of the qu arrelin g pagan philosophers with the constan-
(1434-1438), and was one o f the first Italian hum anists to acquire some tia of sacred letters. T h e pagan philosophers should be studied, but the
knowledge of H ebrew . H e served as secretanus in the Sienese chancery chief lesson to be draw n from them was the inadequacy of hum an reason.
after 1457 and lectured at the Studio on rhetoric and classical literature. It is thus no surprise that he should have been attracted to the pseudo-
H is correspondence shows his close ties with the Piccolom ini family and Platonic Halcyon. T h e text was handed down in at least 27 G reek codices
Francesco P atrizi as well as w ith F lorentine hum anists such as Bartolom eo of Plato and was attrib u ted to Plato in A thenaeus 506C, a text fam iliar
Scala and D on ato A cciaiuoli. E vidently he was in great dem and as a to D a ti’s teacher Filelfo.6 It is now adays attributed to Leon the Academ ic
public speaker, for (perh ap s in im itatio n of his teacher and hero, Filelfo) (fl. 340), one of the first of P lato ’s followers to tu rn to skepticism .7 T he
he left behind a large corpus of oratorical w ritings in seven books, com ­ dialogue itself depicts Socrates with a young disciple, C haerephon,
prising exam ples from every co n tem p o rary genre of speech: academ ic discussing together the legend of the kingfisher (or “ H alcy o n ” ), whose
prolusions, serm ons for sa in ts’ days, speeches for civil, ecclesiastical, and nesting season was supposed to correspond with days of fine w eather in
diplom atic occasions, funeral, w edding, and g raduation speeches; one
should perhaps also include am o n g his oratorical w ritings the num erous
missive he com posed for the C o m u n e of Siena. His m ost fam ous w ork was 3 See the letter to Alexander de Azoguidis, O .P ., in ibid., IT. CLr-CLIr.
an tsagogicus libellus pro conficiendis epistolis et orationibus, w hich was reprinted 4 See G. Di Napoli, L ’immortalita dell’anima nel Rinascimento (Turin, 1963), pp. 110-114;
tor Albert the Great’s platonizing psychology, see P. Michaud-Quantin, La psychologie de
dozens of tim es in the later Q u a ttro c e n to and early C inq u ecen to u n d er the
I’actwite chez Albert le Grand (Paris, 1969). Of Plato Dati knew Calcidius’ translation of the
title Elegantiolae. A history of S iena in three books was left unfinished at Timaeus, Cicero’s translation of the immortality argument from the Phaedrus, Bruni’s ver­
his death. D ati read widely an d superficially in philosophy and was a great sions of the Phaedo and the Gorgias, and Rinuccio’s version of the Axiochus (see the extracts
in Opera, f. CLVIv), and he evidently excerpted Augustine, Macrobius, Traversari’s ver­
believer in the hum an istic d o ctrine th at w isdom should be jo in ed to elo­
sion of Diogenes Laertius, and Lactantius.
quence; he, too, took up the w ell-w orn h u m an ist them es of the im m o rtali­ 3 Garin (1979), pp. 108-110.
ty of the soul an d the dignity of m an in his letters and in his chief 6 For Greek manuscripts of Plato containing the Halcyon, see R. S. Brumbaugh and
R. Wells, The Plato Manuscripts: A New Index (New Haven, 1968), pp. 74-75. For Filelfo’s
philosophical w ork, the De immortalitate animae libri X .2
knowledge of Athenaeus, see App. 4, p. 402, above. Diogenes Laertius III.52 rejects the
Platonic authorship of the dialogue, which is no doubt one reason why it was ignored by
1 See the biography and literature mentioned in D B I , vol. 33: 15-22, and the article Ficino, who followed Diogenes so closely in other matters (above, vol. 1, p. 306); another
ofE. Lee in Contemporaries of Erasmus, ed. P. G. Bietenholz (Toronto, 1985), 1: 378. The reason may be the fideistic position expressed by Socrates, which would have little in
basic work is still J. N. Bandiera, De Augustino Data libri duo (Rome, 1733). common with Ficino’s own convictions.
2 All Dati’s known works are contained in Augustini Dati Senensis opera (Siena, 1503), 7 The work was ascribed to Lucian from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, and
an edition put together by his son Nicholas from his father’s papers; as Dati died sudden­ is also handed down in many Lucian manuscripts. To my knowledge, the First Western
ly o( plague in 1478, many of the works are in an unfinished state. The edition was scholar to attribute the work to Lucian was Vincentius Obsopoeus, On Obsopoeus’ Lu­
reprinted in Venice in 1516. See Cat. B, nos. 16 and 27. The manuscript materials con­ cian, printed at Hagenau in 1529, see Cat. B, no. 41; on Obsopoeus himself see Cat.
tained in the Iter and other catalogues have yet to be surveyed. E, no. 11.
410 PART I A PPEN D ICES 411

m idw inter. W hen Socrates begins to relate a transform ation m yth to ex­ and some aurea vivendi praecepta excerpted from Isocrates’ A d Demonicum,
plain this correspondence, C h a erep h o n breaks in im patiently, expressing it was D a ti’s only tra n sla tio n .11 T h e w ork was dedicated to a certain
a rationalistic contem pt for poetic tales o f this sort. T h e re u p o n Socrates “ A lexander T heologus, O . P . ” , who can be identified w ith A lessandro
reproves him , saying, A zoguido of Bologna (d. 1467).12 In the preface (edited below, T ex t 31)
D ati, residing upon the au th o rity of A u g u stin e’s Confessions, states that
My dear Chaerephon, we seem to be utterly blind when it comes to judging
of the possible and the impossible. We form our opinions in accordance P la to ’s doctrine was very close to the C h ristian faith, and claim s he was
with our human powers, which are incapable in themselves of knowing or attracted not so m uch by the “ fable” of the Halcyon as by the “ very
believing or grasping anything. ... Many indeed will think it likely that the beautiful m ystery” through w hich Socrates and C h aerep h o n discuss the
power, wisdom, and intellect of the universe exceed the small attainments “ im m ense pow er of the H igh and E ternal P rin c e ” ; this rem ark shows
of Socrates and Chaerephon in the same degree as the size of the universe
th at D ati thought the dialo g u e’s references to “ divine p o w er” , the
exceeds their stature.8
heavens and the cosmos should be in terp reted allegorically as referring
T h e power and knowledge of the gods is far g reater th an we can im agine; to G o d .13
we m ust rest content with the tru th s hid d en in poetic tales we have, and T h e translation had some success. It was p rin ted eleven tim es, first
harid them dow n exactly as we have received th e m .9 w ith the works of P lato— Badius included it in his influential Paris edi­
T h e Halcyon thus fits well with D a ti’s ftdeistic tendencies, and so tions of F icino’s Platonis opera— and afterw ards with the works of
should perhaps be added to the list o f ancient sources for R enaissance L u c ia n .14
skepticism . T h e dialogue ought also to have reinforced the “ academ ic
skeptical’’ in terp retatio n of Plato, b u t it can n ot be said that D ati him self
produced so coherent an in terp retatio n . In fact, to ju d g e from Book V I 11 The versions from Pythagoras and Isocrates were included in a letter (II.2) to Alex­

of the De immortalitate animae and his unfinished Stromata, D ati hardly rises ander de Azoguidis O .P . of Bologna, dated only “ nono Kal. Apriles” . We may infer
from Dati’s letter that these were completed shortly after the Halcyon (edn. cit., f. CLr):
abpve doxography, and never really tried to sort out P la to ’s position as “ Postquam Alcyonem Platonis perfeceram forte incidi in Pythagorae versus et Isocratis
a whole. Signs of direct Platonic influence on D ati are rare and a m ­ libellum in quibus aurea quaedam vivendi praecepta continerentur.” These works Dati
biguous. 10 later (f. CLIr) calls “ exercitationes” and in his preface to the Halcyon (Text 31) that work
is called “ interpretationum mearum primitias” ; both statements imply an early date.
MJe have no inform ation ab o u t the date of the Halcyon version, 12 The “ Alexander monachus Bononiensis’’ of Dati’s Ep. II.2 (see previous note) has
although it is likely to be an early w ork, d atin g from the period of D a ti’s been identified by J. Quetif and J. Echard, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum (Paris, 1719),
G reek studies with Filelfo. Except for a version of P y th ag o ras’ Aurea verba 1:856, as Alexander de Azoguidis; the latter is the author of some sermons and a com­
mentary on the Sentences, and was evidently Dati’s mentor in theology.
13 See Text 31. The reference in the preface to the mystery of the “ immense power

of the high and eternal Prince’’ probably refers to cap. 4, xw 8aip.ovtq> 8e pEyaXtiv xai ou8e
8 Halcyon , caps. 3, 6 : EQ. TQ «piXe Xatpecpow, £oixap.£v ripeit; xcov 8 ovaxa>v xe xai aSuvaxojv j.(3Xt]xt]v uitEpoyriv zyovxi itpo<; xa? fjpEXEpa? SuvapEi? or to the passage in cap. 6 (quoted
ou |
apj3 Xua>7toi' xives sivat xptxai JtavxeXag- SoxipaCopev yap Srj xaxa 8 uvapiv av0 pa>jtt'v7)v ayvooaxov in note 8 , above) describing the power, wisdom and intellect of the cosmos.
ouaav xai axtaxov xai aopaxov. ... 7u 0 avov ouv i'ato<; 8 ol"£i rcoXXou;. oariv £^£i xo |iifE0o<; xoO 14 See under Index of Translators (Cat. G, no. 2), and note 7, above.
xoapou xt|v uTCEpoxfiv 7ipo<; xo Ea>xpaxou<; f) Xaip£<p<ovxo<; £1 8 0 ?, xriXtxoGxov xai xrjv Suvaptv auxoG
xai xt)v ppoviqatv xai Stavotav avaXoyov Sia^pEtv xf}<; rcspi fipat; 8t.a8£aea><;. D a ti’s translation:
“ O amice Chaerophon, uidemur nos quidem et eorum quae fieri possint et eorum quo-
que quae effici nequeant tardi atque obtusiores quidam esse iudices. Nam iudicamus nos
plane pro humanae facultatis uiribus quae et rerum ignara ac rudis est et difficile ad-
ducitur ut credatur. ... Credibile itaque fortassis plerisque uidebitur eiusmodi habet
mqndi magnitudo praestantia ad Socratis et Chaerephontis formam, eiusmodi et suam
ipsius potestate<m > et prudentiam ac denique cognitionem irrationabilem [leg. Datus
aXoyov ut uid. J earn quae in nobis inest antecellere facultatem.” Cp. Pkdr. 229Cf.
3 Ibid., cap. 8 : x X eo<; Be pu0wv, oiov -rzapiOoaav jtaxspE?, xotoGxov xai xaiaiv ipoi? ...
xapaocoaco xtov a<I>v Gpvcov itipi, xxX.. D ati : “ Ceterum gloria fabularum qualis a patribus
prodita est talem et pueris meis ... dcbeo enim praebere de tuis laudibus” , etc.
10 Della 1orre’s remark (p. 147) that Dati imitated Plato in his De voluptate (edn. cit.,
It. CCLVIr-CCLVIIIIr) seems considerably overstated; there are a few formal
resemblances, but certainly no sign ot any doctrinal influence. On f. Xr he states his
preference for Aristotle over Plato.
 A PPEN D ICES 413

cases ado p tin g its very w ords for his own version, b u t he also m ade use
of his fa th e r’s a p p a ra tu s.4 T h e short argum ents w ere taken over with
APPENDIX 7 very few, m ostly stylistic, changes (com pare T exts 35 and 50, below).
T h e division into capitula is Pier C a n d id o ’s own, though some of them
U B E R T O A N D P IE R C A N D ID O D E C E M B R IO ’S N 0 T A B IL 1 A are adap tatio n s of U b e rto ’s no tes.5 T hey w ere evidently added at a later
T O T H E IR T R A N S L A T IO N S O F T H E R E P U B L IC stage in the process of translation, since they are absent in T rivulzianus
683 which contains only Books I and V (perhaps the sam e m anuscript
T he apparatus of prefaces, a rg u m e n ta , c h ap ter divisions, and m arginal sent in 1437 to M ichele Pizolpasso, since the nam e “ P etrus C an d id u s”
notes prepared by P. C . D ecem brio for his translation o f the Republic is, has been erased before “ D ecem brius” in the text; see vol. 1, p. 124f.)
as has been argued in vol. 1, an im p o rta n t p art of his general effort to and they ap p ear as sim ple m arginal notes in the dedication copy of Books
use the mis-en-page of the codex to regulate the re a d e r’s perceptions of the I-V (H arl. 1705). Som e of U b e rto ’s notes, too, P ier C andido expanded
Platonic te x t.1 T h e notabilia in p artic u la r, how ever, req u ire some com ­ and adapted, but the vast m ajority of them are new and m ust be at­
m ent as they have som etim es been m istaken for notes m ade by readers trib u ted to him . (T hey are unrelated to the expanded versions of U b er­
or owners of the various surv iv in g copies of D ecem b rio ’s translation. to ’s notes in the Seville M S; the autograph notes in A m bros. R 75 sup.
T h e story in fact begins w ith the C hrysoloras-D ecem brio translation of represent an earlier redaction of those published from the archetype.)
1402. For this translation U b e rto D ecem brio p rep ared , in addition to his T h e notes, like those of his father, do not form a com plete set of glosae
“ P rologus” , short arg u m en ts to each book (T ext 35) and a set of in the m a n n e r of m edieval school com m entaries, but are a sort of hybrid
m arginal notes which he expected to be tran scribed w ith the text itself in betw een (a) headings {“ notabilia ’ proper) to help a read er find the m atter
all copies m ade from his exem plar. T h e exem plar has been plausibly w hich interested him , (b) “ footnotes” giving parallels, identifying
identified by Bottoni (p. 79f.) as A m bros. B 123 inf. Som e or m ost of the sources, or explaining transliterated term s, tropes, puzzles, allegories,
notes found in the exem plar are found as well in R eg. lat. 1131, O ttob. literary and historical references, (c) com m ents on how passages are to
lat. 2050, L au r. L X X X IX , sup. 50, W est Berlin SB L at. fol. 614, and be in terp reted , and (d) ejaculations draw ing atten tio n to gems of Platonic
Naples BN V III. G .51. In three cases ad d itio n al sets of notes w ere added w isdom , in p articu lar sententiae of his which D ecem brio thought ap ­
by other hum anists: by G u a rin o V eronese in R eg. lat. 1131 (edited in plicable to co ntem porary situations. In copies of the translation made
H ankins [1987b]) and by G a sp a rin o B arzizza in N aples V III. G .5 1 .2 from P ier C a n d id o ’s exem plar (A m bros. I 104 su p.), he seems as a rule
B arzizza’s notes were in tu rn copied in A m bros. A .96 inf. (C at. A, no. to have added the m arginalia in his own h an d while correcting the
154) by a stu d en t of his at P a d u a , one T o m m aso Bibi d a C ipro. Bibi was m an uscript, or at least to have been personally involved in the selection
a student in artibus betw een 1420 an d 1424;3 since B arzizza left P ad u a for of notes for inclusion. In H arl. 1705 and V at. lat. 10669, the two dedica­
Pavia and M ilan in 1421, the notes are p robably from 1420-21. In tion copies to D uke H u m p h rey , D ecem brio w rote the m arginalia
Seville, C olom bina 5-6-21, U b e rto ’s notes a p p ear in m uch expanded him self, selecting most of them from the exem plar and adding a few
form in the h and of the copyist. It is possible th at they represent an o th er others w hich he evidently thought suitable to D uke H u m p h re y ’s p a r­
redaction of his m arg in alia m ade by U b e rto at a later date. ticular needs and interests. H is hand has also copied the m uch sparser
W hen P ier C an d id o u n d erto o k his new version of the Republic, he notes, closely related to those of the exem plar, found in T u rin , Bibi. Naz.
began, as Bottoni has recently show n, w ith U b e rto ’s exem plar, A m bros. E .I I I .3 0 .6
B 123 inf. N ot only did he use the earlier tran slation as a crib, in m any
4 For another instance where Pier Candido made use of his literary patrimony, see vol.
1, p. 141n.
5 The division into capitula and the rubrication of the interlocutors were made on the
advice of Bishop Alfonso Garcia; see vol. 1, p. I33n.
1 See vol 1, p. 1321'. 6 I have not seen the copies at Kues or Bressanone, but Santinello, passim, reports that
Holkham MS 423 (Cat. A, no. 387) has the “ Fabula Heri Pamphili” excerpted from the notes in the Kues MS. are entirely in the hand ol the copyist, whilst those in its
Republic X, perhaps in Barzizza’s hand, but without annotations. apograph at Bressanone were copied partly by the scribe and partly by Nicolaus Cusanus
See Acta graduum academicurum pymnasn Patavim ab anno 1406 ad annum 1450, ed. C. himself. The Durham copy is probably an apograph of Vat. lat. 10669 and the Munich
Zonta and I. Brotto [Padua. 1970), vol. 1, nos. 528, 607-609. copies, CLM 225 (Schedel) and 5347, are both late.
 414 PART I

T h e notes in the S alam anca m an u scrip t are of p artic u la r interest (see

T ext 51). T h e m an u scrip t was alm ost certainly copied for D ecem b rio ’s
friend and p a tro n Alfonso G arcia, the bishop of Burgos. D ecem brio APPENDIX 8

him self noted on the fly-leaf o f his exem plar th at he had m ade a copy for
Alfonso (see Z accaria [1959], p. 197, n. 2) and we have a letter from D E C E M B R IO ’S P L A T O N IC S T U D IE S
Alfonso of 1447/50 th an k in g D ecem brio for the m an u scrip t (T ext 52L).
It was D ecem b rio ’s usual practice to have the text p ro p e r copied by a A. His Supposed Translation of the Sophist
iprofessional scribe, b u t to an n o ta te the m an u script in his own h and. In
this case, the m arg in alia are in the h and of the scribe, b u t on fol. 14r and T h e ascription to D ecem brio of a translation of P lato ’s Sophist was first
elsew here one m ay see that the scribe has in fact overcopied tiny notes m ade by M orel-F atio in 1896,1 accepted by D itt (q. v., p. 71), and, with
w ritten by D ecem brio in a pale ink. A gloss at 607D is signed “ P. C an- some hesitation, also listed by Z accaria (1956), p. 61. T h e ascription was
d id u s .” Alfonso is addressed by nam e on fol. 88r ( “ A rrige aures, m ade on the basis o f a dedicatory epistle to a life of H o m er, inc. “ R em
Burgensis o p tim e ” ). T h e notes are m uch m ore extensive and elaborate profecto p u lc h ra m ” , addressed to a certain “Jo h a n n e s vir praestan-
than those in the ex em p lar and were probably com posed by D ecem brio tissim us” , in which the a u th o r declared him self to have nearly finished
as a special favor for his p atro n . w riting a Libellus de sophista. T h e au th o r of this preface was identified by
B andini, in his catalogue description of M S. L aur. L X III, 30, as Pier
C an d id o D ecem brio, m erely because B andini had read in Saxius that
D ecem brio had com posed a life of H o m er dedicated to K ing J o h n II of
C astile, and that the epistle dedicatory to the translation was “ com pletely
devoted to his p ra ise ” .2 I have recently been inform ed, th rough the k ind­
ness of Prof. G . N. K n a u e r,3 that the L au ren zian a M S (L au r. L X III,
30) of this life of H o m er is in fact a translation of the p s.-P lu tarch an Vita
Homeri m ade by P etru s Parleo A rim inensis, as is proved from the cir­
cum stance m at the incipit of the translation proper (f. 36v), “ Ig itur
E phorus C u m aeu s in eo libro quern de patriis rebus in scrip sit” , does not
m atch that of P ier C a n d id o ’s Life, inc. “ Satis constat H o m eru m
po etaru m principem om n iu m antiquissim um apud G raecos floruisse” ,
b ut does m atch th at of at least two other m anuscripts w here the Life, with
the dedication “ R em profecto p u lc h ra m ” , is definitely attrib u ted to
Parleo and the dedicatee is identified as Jo a n n e s M arcus A rim in en sis.4*

1 “ Les Deux Omero castillans,” Romania 25 (1896): 123.

2 A. M. Bandini, Cat. codd. lat. Bibl. Med. Laur. (Florence, 1774), 2:702: “ Vita
Homeri, auctore, ut comperimus, P. Candido Decembrio ad gloriosissimum Principem
Ioannem Castellae, et Legionis Regem, cum Epistola dedicatoria, quae tota in eiusdem
laudibus versatur, et inc. Rem profecto pulcram [etc.] ... Ex Cl. Saxii Historia
Typographica Litteraria Mediol. pag. CCCIII eruitur, Petrum Candidum Homeri
vitam e Graecis et Latinis scriptoribus ftdeliter adornasse, Epistola praemissa ad
gloriosissimum Principem Ioannem Castellae et Legionis Regem, quae tota in eius laudibus
versatur, ex quibus verbis huius Homericae vitae auctorem habes.’’
3 Prof. Knauer’s article on Homer is to appear in a future volume of the Catalogus
Translationum et Commentariorum. The information in the rest of this paragraph was provid­
ed by Prof. Knauer.
4 The attribution is preserved in Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Est. lat. 597 [Alpha N
5, 8], ff. 32-39 (Iter 1:381), Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canon, misc. 19 (2), ff. l3-3lv,
 416 PART I A P P E N D IC E S 417

N one of the o th er know n m an u scrip ts of D ecem b rio ’s Vita Homeri, on the Filelfo and p erhaps of A rgyropoulos,7 it is barely possible that the work
other hand, has the preface “ R em profecto p u lch ram ’’.5 T h e Libellus de referred to could be a translation of P lato ’s Sophist, but this is, in my
sophista, therefore, m ust be the w ork of P etru s Parleo A rim inensis, not view, highly im probable. T h e passage of the dedicatory epistle in ques­
of D ecem brio. tion does not m ention P lato .8 T h e Sophist is not a short text so that a
Pietro P arleone or P erleone of R im in i is a well-known m inor hum anist translation of it w ould hardly be called a libellus. M oreover Parleo speaks
who was a m em b er of the V en etian circle of Jaco p o A ntonio M arcello. of writing a book rath er th an translating. Finally, P arleo ’s interests, as
A fair n u m b er of his works su rv iv e.6 As Parleo had been a student of well as those of his dedicatee G iovanni M arco da R im in i, seem to have
been chiefly literary an d an tiq u arian rath er than philosophical; the
and Princeton Univ. Library, MS. 44. ff. 60-98 (De Ricci 2:1183): “ Petri Parleonis abstruse m etaphysical discussions of the Sophist ap p ear rath er remote
Ariminensis ad Ioannem Marcum Ariminensem Homeri vita, {me.) Rem profecto from his (P arleo ’s) usual line of work. It is m uch m ore likely that this
pulchram— ” A note on f. 1 of this MS. gives the provenance as the monastery of S.
w ork is the collection of P arleo ’s poems to which Filelfo obscurely refers
Bernardino outside Urbino; the manuscript is almost certainly the one mentioned by
Luigi Tonini in his Stona di Rimini (1882), 5:569: “ Pietro Perleom indirizzo al Marchi in a letter to Parleo of 16 J u n e 1456: “ De carm ine quod scripsisti,
una vita d’Omero da lui scritta, la quale fu vista in un codice cartaceo de' PP di S. Ber­ c u ra b itu r a me diligenter et pro am icitia nostra, idque in proxim is quin-
nardino fuori d’Urbino in fine alle opere di Igino’’ (Hvginus forming the first part of the que carm in u m libris ITepi 8e ao<pia-coo [jiV], cum e G allia T ransalpina
Princeton MS as well). In four other manuscripts the text appears without the name of
the author: Laur. LXIII, 30 (falsely attributed to Decembrio by Bandini), Laur. Conv. reu ertero , quo proxim is hisce diebus sum profecturus, satisfaciam volun-
soppr. 445 and Rice. 893 (both wrongly attributed to Decembrio by Kristeller on the tati tuae. ’’9
basis of Bandini’s false identification; see Iter 1:75 and 207), and Florence, Bibl.
Marucelliana B. VIII. 15, fasc. 12, ff. 6-24v, s. XVIII, wrongly attributed to Decembrio
on the basis of Bandini’s catalogue. Rice. 3022, ff. 88-100v (a. 1477), lacking the
B. His Treatise De im m ortalitate
dedicatory epistle ( inc. Ephorus Cumaeus), is apparently unattributed (see Iter 1:225), as
is Notre Dame, Ind., University Library, MS 43, ff. lr-9v {Iter ts 7298). Prof. Knauer D ecem b rio ’s treatise De immortalitate humani animi, probably w ritten
further informs me that Bologna, Biblioteca Comunale dell’Archiginnasio B 3472, con­
taining “ Homeri vita ex probatissimis grecis per Ponticum Virunium congregata’’, inc. a ro u n d 1460 and dedicated to Francesco V isconti (the law professor of
“ Superfluum fortasse videretur’’ {Iter 1:17) is in fact a copy of Parleo’s translation with Pavia), is also closely associated with his Platonic studies. T he treatise
a new prooemium written apparently by Ponticus Virunius (on whom see C T C 3:160). has been edited and thoroughly studied by K risteller, who shows that it
5 Burgo de Osma, Biblioteca del Catedral, cod. 122 (Orcajo, Catalogo, p. 218);
Biblioteca de El Escorial, MS. O II 15 (Antolln, Catalogo, 3:215); Ambros. D 112 inf. is in large p a rt a pastiche based remotely on ps. A u g u stin e’s De spiritu et
{Iter 1:321; preface, inc. Scio miraberis, published by Zaccaria [1956], p. 23); Paris, BN anima (probably s. X II) and proxim ately on T h om as C an tim p raten sis’
lat. 9683. There is also a Castillian translation found by Morel-Fatio (note 79 above), De natura rerum (s. X III), as well as a variety of other so u rces.10 T h e work
in London, British Library, Add. MS 21,245.
6 For a bio-bibliographv, see King, pp. 416-417; to which may be added Voigt, m ay well have had its origin in disputes betw een D ecem brio and the
Wiederbelebung, 2nd edn. (1880-1), 1:592 and 2:116; F. Schemmel, “ Schule von Konstan- M ilanese hu m an ist A ntonius C anobius about A ristotle’s orthodoxy on
tinopel,” Philologische Wochenschnjt 45 (1925): 238; Iter, vols. 1-3, ad indices; L. Gualdo
the m atter of personal im m ortality; it suggests that for D ecem brio, as
Rosa, “ Niccold Loschi e Pietro Perleone e le traduzioni dell’orazione pseudo-isocratea
A Demonico, Atti dell'Istituto Veneto di Sctenze, Lettere ed Arti, cl. di scienze morali, lettere ed arti
131 (1972-73): 825-856; eadem, La fede nella ‘‘paideia ’ Aspetti della fortuna europea di Isocrate 7 The evidence for Parleo’s having studied with Argyropoulos is a letter of Filelfo
net secoli X V e X V I (Rome, 1984), pp. 41, 70, 90, 112, 246; Monfasani, George of Trebizond, (cited by Schemmel, p. 238) printed by Legrand, p. 51. But this letter is only a request
p. 45. Parleo had been a student of Filelfo, lived in Venice from 1436 to 1441, and tra­ that Argyropoulos admit Parleo to his lectures; there is no evidence that Parleo actually
velled to Constantinople sometime before the end of 1441. Between 1441 and 1443 he did so. If he did study with Argyropoulos, it must have been in Padua, not Constantino­
may have studied with John Argyropoulos in Padua (see next note). In 1443, he appears ple (as is said by King, p. 417), for Filelfo’s letter of introduction to Argyropoulos states
in Florence as a papal protonotary under Eugene IV. After January 1447 Parleo succeed­ that Parleo had just returned from Constantinople. Argyropoulos taught privately at
ed to Antonio Cassarino’s chair of grammar in Genoa (see Filelfo, Epistolae [1502], f. Palla Strozzi’s house in Padua from 1441 to 1444; he did not teach in Constantinople
42v). From Filelfo’s letters it appears that Parleo returned to his patria, Rimini, in March until 1448-1453; see E. Bigi in D B I 4: 129-141.
of 1453 in an effort to gain a position at the court of Sigismondo Malatesta (ibid., f. 75), 8 I quote from the text as published by Bandini, c it.: “ Itaque libello de Sophista, de
and in January 1458 moved to Venice where he worked as a tutor to certain patrician quo valde me rogasti, ut ad te scriberem, quemque iam proprie (jic) absolveram, praeter-
families (ibid., f. 99v). In Venice he was associated with the humanist circle of Jacopo misso, contuli me ad Homerum tuum, quod prius hoc te velle scire intelligebam.’’
Antonio Marcello, to whom he addressed a Laudatio in Valerium eius filium eximium (see 9 Epistolae [1502], f. 85v; Milan, Bibl. Trivulziana MS 873, f. 166v, also gives the odd
King in Supplementum Festivum, pp. 221-246). He also wrote a work on the siege of Con­ reading Ilept 8e aocpia-coo. The work is not mentioned by King, op. cit.
stantinople, De Constaniinopolis expugnatione, surviving in Pesaro, Bibl. Oliveriana MS 10 See “ Pier Candido Decembrio ”, in Kristeller (1985), pp. 281-300. To this reprint
1381 (Mazzatinti 45: 161; Iter 2: 66). On the dedicatee, Giovanni Marco da Rimini, see Kristeller has added in Appendix IV, pp. 567-584, a critical edition of the text based on
G. Baader, in Studia Codicologica, Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. 125 (1977): 43-97. the five known manuscripts.
 418 PART I A PPEN D IC ES 419

earlier for P etrarch and later for Ficino, p art of P la to ’s attractio n m ay translation is heavily bow dlerized, w ith all references to hom osexuality
have been his ability to provide a respectable c o u n terau th o rity to em ploy excised, a fact D ecem brio him self seems to adm it in the preface (w ithout
(overtly) against the im pious A verroism reg nant in the schools, and saying precisely w hat has been om itted). H e asks to be excused for this
(covertly) against his rivals at c o u r t.11 A lthough far from being an im ­ on the grounds that C icero and V ergil followed the sam e practice of ex ­
pressive work of philosophy, it is n otew orthy for its frequent linking of cerpting G reek a u th o rs.14 T h e specim en from the translation given here
Platonic and A u g u stin ian them es an d for its attem p t to show the large is included as a sam ple of the defects in D ecem b rio ’s knowledge of G reek,
area of agreem ent betw een P lato an d C h ristian ity on the subject of the and as a cautionary of the lengths to which Fifteenth-century bow dlerizers
im m ortality of the soul. K risteller has noted a significant erro r m ade by could go. T h e M ad rid m anuscript seems to represent a m ore pious redac­
D ecem brio in identifying im ages of m em ory with the Platonic ideas, an tion, as the G reek kaloi, “ p re tty ” , used to describe S ocrates’ young
erro r which argues against any profo u n d u n d erstan d in g of Platonic friends, is altered from pulchri to docti in th at witness.
m etaphysics on D ecem b rio ’s p a r t .12 T h e treatise form s an interesting
link betw een the P latonic studies of early fifteenth-century h u m anism F — Ferrara, Bibl. Com. MS II, 66
and the concerns of the F lorentine P latonism and the disp u tan ts in the M — Madrid, Bibl. Umv. N. F. MS 118-Z-20
Plato-A ristotle controversy.
P latonis dia lo gus D e am ic it ia a P. C a n d i d o in la ti nu m ve rsu s

C . His Bowdlerized. Version of the Lysis V eniebam ex A chadem ia Euthilicii que extra urbem pone ipsa m enia
sita est. C u m autem ad p o rtam accessissem, ubi Panopei fons est, occurrit
It m ay be useful to ap p en d here, in o rd e r fu rther to illustrate D ecem ­ [nc] m ihi H ippothales H ieronym i et C tesippus Peanii et alii plerique ado-
b rio ’s Platonic studies, an ex tract from his translation of the Lysis. T h e 5 lescentes qui forte u n a convenerant. T u n c me progredientem conspicatus
dialogue was tran slated in 1456 an d dedicated to his friend, the poet O t- H ippotales, O Socrates, inquit, quo tendis et unde uenisti?
taviano degli U baldini, with w hom he had stayed in 1449 after falling — Ex A chadem ia E uthilicii, in q u am , venio.
sick in U rbino while travelling on a d iplom atic m ission to R o m e .13 T h e — Accede ad nos, in q u it ille, ne contem nas; digna quidem res est.
— Q u id ais, in q u am , et ad quos vestrum ?
11 See the letter of Filelfo to Canobius, dated 5 October 1450, in Epistolae (1502), f. 10 —Accede, inquit, edificium q u oddam e m uri regione subinde
48r: “ Scribis Candidum Decembrem contendere tecum solitum nihil usquam scripsisse
Aristotelen de animi immortalitate. Idque mirari te quod talis ille tantusque philosophus ostendens ac ianuam patentem . M o ra m u r istic, inquit, nos ipsi et alii
in tanto errore versatus fuerit. Quae ipse in tuis litteris legens non potui non surridere plures adolescentes perdocti.
quod nebulo iste Candidus nitatur impietatem suam sub dolo ac falso confirmare — Q u id hoc est, in q u am , aut que vobis m ora?
testimonio. Nam et immortalem Aristoteles esse animum probat et divinum ... [There
follow quotations from De gen. animal. II and De anima II] ... At Candidus iste tuus cuius — Palestra, inquit, n u p er condita. C onversatio autem nostra ut pluri-
animus ob flagitiorum magnitudinem aeternis tenebris est addictus, haec non credit, ob 15 m um in serm onibus te ritu r, quibus libenter te etiam adm ittem us, o
idque Aristotelis auctoritate quern numquam legit tueri autumat stultitiam suam. Sed Socrates.
quid miremur ita opinari Candidum, cum ne ullam quidem credat esse divinitatem?
Num si crederet deum esse, viveret ita ut vivit?” The charge of atheism against Decem­ — O ptim e, inquam , facitis. Sed quis vos ibi erudit?
brio must be dismissed, since Filelfo and he were in the habit of accusing each other of —T u u s, ille inquit, contubernalis et lau d ato r M iccus.
the most abominable crimes without the least basis in reality. — P er Iovem , in q u am , h au d contem nendus vir ille, verum sophista
12 Kristeller (1985), p. 294, n. 53.
13 See Zaccaria (1956), 54-55. The date is based on a letter to Alfonso Garcia dated 20 egregius.
1July 1456 from Pier Candido informing Alfonso of the recent completion of the transla­ —Vis igitur nos sequi, inquit, et eos qui adsunt invisere?
tion of the Platonic dialogue De amicitia (Text 52K). Another notice is given in a letter — N on facile, in q u am , nisi Lysim serm oni interesse m ecum uelis.
to Decembrio from his old Milanese friend Ottavio Vicomercato; see Text 5 2 0 . On Ot-
taviano degli Ubaldini, see Borsa, Pier Candido Decembrio, p. 367, with the literature cited — A tqui difficile neu tiq u e est, inquit. Q uippe si u n a cum C tesippo in-
in the note. Borsa describes him as a familiar of Duke Federigo and a poet noted for his gressus fueris et sedens loqui ceperis, puto et ilium accessurum . Perliben-
sonnets upon the artist Pisanello. The Greek manuscript upon which this translation was 25 ter enim inter ceteros audit, o Socrates, et sim ul ludos d u cu n t in unum
based is undoubtedly Wroclaw, Bibl. Uniwersytecka Akc 60/49 (ohm Breslau, Gym­
nasium Fridericianum, cod. 1), which contains both the Lysis and the Laches and has the perm ixti pueri atq u e adolescentuli. A derat tibi igitur sin m inus C tesippo
superscription “ Est P. Candidi, emptus Senis 1442 die XHIa Sept.” (see Kristeller
[1985], p. 287, n. 27). 4 See Text 53.
 420 PART I
A PPE N D IC ES 421

ipsi, nam illi contubernalis est ob hunc eorum consobrium M enexenus. certainly A m bros. E 90 sup. (M artin i and Bassi, pp. 338-339), which
M enexeno autem m axim e affectus est. V ocabit igitur eum ad se, si m inus displays, on ff. 76r-77r, specim ens of D ecem b rio ’s G reek and Latin
veniet. hands. T his codex cannot be C hry so lo ras’, since its lacunae do not m atch
30 — Sic, ego in q u am , facere o portet. Et sim ul C tesippum assum ens, pa- those know n to have existed in that m an u scrip t. But its text agrees in
lestram ingressus sum . Alii vero p o stm odum in tro ieru n t. C u m ingressi every case w ith th at of the G reek passages added by D ecem brio to I 104
essemus aptissim os illic pueros invenim us, et quidem post sacra vixdum sup. (aside from certain ineptiae of D ecem brio), in som e cases agreeing
perfecta talis invicem ludentes et egregie ornatos. M u lti igitur ex his in together against the readings of the ‘W ’ fam ily. W e m ay suppose that
aula ludebant sim ul, q u id am vero in spoliario per soboles talis contende- D ecem brio borrow ed the m an u scrip t to rep air his ow n text, and returned
35 ban t plurim is. In sta b a n t alii eligentes, his vero alii assistentes spectabant. the favor by filling a lacuna in E 90 sup. (Rep. 517C-519B) from his own
C u m quibus et Lysis erat in te r p ueros et adolescentes serto redim itus, m anuscript.
facie ceteris longe conspicuus, neque solum bonus et audire dignus, Libn annotati. In 1437 D ecem brio appears to have copied into a
verum doctus ac bonus. Nos vero e regione secedentes consedim us. E rat zibaldone B ru n i’s tran slatio n of the Crito and C encio d e ’R u stici’s version
enim ibi silentium et quies, atq u e invicem loqui orsi sum us. S epenum ero of the Axiochus, w hich latter dialogue has an n o tatio n s in his h a n d .16 He
40 itaque se convertens Lysis nos in tu e b a tu r, vehem enterque ad nos cupie- also had a copy of B ru n i’s translation of the Phaedo and the Letters, which
bat accedere. V eru m cum q u ib u s am b ig eb at et solus accedere v ereb atu r, he evidently read closely w ith the G reek text. D ecem brio found two
interea M enexenus ex aula in ter caeteros ludens in g red itu r, u tq u e me ac places in B ru n i’s Phaedo version w here he had om itted to translate some
C tesippum contem platus est, u n a sessurus accessit. V idens itaque ilium of the G re e k .17 A nd in a letter to his Bolognese friend Zenone A m idano
Lysis secutus est et cum M enexeno consedit; accesserunt et alii. T u rn ego he attacks B runi for reg ard in g the Letters as g e n u in e .18 It is possible that
45 in M enexenum conversus, o D em o p h o n tis puer, in q u am , u te r vestrum
D ecem b rio ’s shrew d ju d g e m e n t regarding the au th en ticity of the Letters
natu m aior est? was m otivated by his literary rivalry w ith B runi, or by the desire to
reduce the esteem of a w ork which seem ed (in B ru n i’s version) to favor
2 in p o s t ipsa M 3 sita] posita M 10 quodam M 12 perdocti s c r i p s i ] prodocti F : per-
republicanism , or because som e letters seem ed to bear out the charges of
pulchri M , f o r t , e x r e d a c t , a l i a a u c t . 27 illi o m . M 28 affectus F \ assecutus M 30 ego F
(eyti g r a e c e ) ] ergo M 43 doctus F \ pulcher M , f o r t , e x r e d a c t , a l i a a u c t . Plato s venality m ade by J e r o m e ,19 but it is nevertheless interesting that
the au th en ticity of the Letters could be questioned alm ost as soon as they
D . Miscellanea becam e know n in the W e st.20

Decembrio’s Greek manuscript of the Republic. N o one to m y know ledge has yet
succeeded in identifying the G reek codex of the Republic used by 16 Cat. A, no. 168.
C hrysoloras and the D ecem brii for th eir translations. T h e present w riter 17 Cat. A, no. 198; see f. 43v, where Decembrio wrote “ Deficit oiXX’ atotiov
has however found a m an u scrip t w hich D ecem brio seem s to have m ade ti pot roxfloq itapfiv xou •«<; af|9ry; xpaais” (59A), and f. 70v, where he added Tjrcou peXcnrwv
r| puppf|xcov f) xai is Toctkov ye 7tdXtv to avQpdnttvov yivot; (91 A).
use of at a later point in his studies. T h e C hrysoloras m an u scrip t, a 18 Rice. 827, f. 24r: “ Difficile est Leonardo Arretino viro litteris graecis erudito non
m em ber of the ‘W ’ family, h ad evidently a large n u m b er of lacunae (listed credere de his Platonis ut ait epistolis quod putat; mihi vero quam longe a tanti
by Bottoni on pp. 186-187). D ecem brio ap parently tried to find an o th er philosophi dignitate videntur abesse. Verum a scriptore nequaquam rerum platonicarum
inscio, sed versuto admodum confictae et exaratae tanta cura,’’ etc. It is possible that
m anuscript of the Republic to rep air these defects, b u t only succeeded in the excerpts from the E p i s t o l a e made by Decembrio’s great friend Antonio da Rho (Cat.
doing so after he had published his tran slatio n in 1440. W h en he did final­ A, no. 187) were made from Decembrio’s copy.
ly find a second m an u scrip t, he en tered the m issing passages in G reek in 19 Bruni had, it will be recalled (vol. 1, p. 79), already questioned the authenticity of
L e t t e r X I I I . He was followed in this exclusion by Ficino, who also translated only the first
the m argins of the exem plar o f his L atin version, A m bros. I 104 su p ., with twelve letters (see vol. 1, p. 306). The letter was restored to the Latin corpus by the
the notation (f. 171 r ) , “ H ec additiones grece hie et alibi deficiebant in printer Antonius Vincentius in his edition of Ficino’s translation printed at Lyons in 1557
volum ine E m anuelis C hrysolore. ” 15 T h is second m an u scrip t is alm ost (Cat. B, no. 96).
20 The “ short note on Plato’s Academy’’ in Modena, Bibl. Estense MS Camp. App.
110 (Gamma 0 5, 7), 1. 58v, (I t e r 1: 391b) is actually a series of notes on Socrates and
15 The circumstance that these Greek passages were written a r o u n d the apparatus oi his followers. It is not autograph, but the following text (ff. 59r-68r, D e i m m o r t a l i t a t e
marginalia shows that they were added after the translation had been completed. a m m a e ) has autograph n o l a b i l i a in Decembrio’s hand.
 APPENDICES 423

different from P la to ’s concept of the Beautiful. (Ficino translates ac­

curately w ith pulchrum ipsum.)
APPENDIX 9 H ere follow two other short exam ples from the sam e passage il­
lustrative of the strengths and shortcom ings of P ier C andido D ecem brio,
F O U R Q U A T T R O C E N T O T R A N S L A T O R S O F R E P U B L IC V C assarino, and Ficino in their renderings of philosophical passages.
1. Rep. 4 7 6 D 5 -6 : Ouxouv tootou fiev tt)v Siavoiav co<; yiyvcoaxovTOe; yvcopiqv av
I have com pared elsew here1 the translations of the fam ous “ D ivided op0a>i; <pat|X£v elvat, tou 8e Soijav <o<; 8otja£ovxo<;;
L in e ” passage at the end of Book V I m ade by the four Q u attro cen to
translators o f the Republic. F rom th at analysis it was concluded that Decembrio: Huius itaque intellectum sicut cognoscentis recte mentem nonne
Ficino was by far the best philosophical tran slato r of the four (even if he dicemus esse? Alterius vero opinionem tanquam opinantis (Vat. lat. 10669,
f. lOOv)
did im pose a N eoplatonic reading on the passage), while C a ssa rin o ’s v e r­
sion, philosophical passages aside, was the m ost accurate and the m ost Cassarino: Num huius quidem comprehensionem tanquam cognoscentis
stylish (or “ elo q u e n t” , as the hum anists w ould say). T h e aim of the p res­ sententiam, illius autem opinionem tamquam opinantis recte utique esse
ent appendix is furth er to illustrate these characteristics w ith some diximus? (Vat. lat. 3346, f. 130v)
passages from Republic V.
Ficino:Huius igitur cogitationem ut cognoscentis cognitionem iure
C assarino, as the best of the early hum anist translators, m ay be taken vocabimus, huius tamquam opinantis opinionem? (impr. Venetiis, 1491, f.
as typical of their philosophical shortcom ings. T h e gravest of his errors 214r).
is perhaps his inconsistency in ren d erin g technical term s in Platonic p h i­
losophy, for it is upon a consistent use of term s that all accurate in te r­ Ficino u n d erstan d s that Plato is using yvd>(xr| as a variation on yvco<n<;, and
pretation m ust depend. A t the end of Book V , for instance, there occurs translates accordingly. D ecem brio translates the word literally and m ean-
a passage w here Plato tries to m ain tain that there is a grade of being b e­ inglessly; C assarino takes yvcopr) in the sense of “ gnom ic” . H e also finds
tw een Being Itself, or P ure Being ( to ov, to etXixptvdix; ov), and N on-B eing yet a n o th er substitute for Siavota, presum ably in o rd er to avoid the
( to (xt) ov), offering as p roof of his thesis the arg u m en t th at since there is stylistic fault o f parechesis which would result from the translation cogni­
an interm ediate class of know ing, opinion (56£a), betw een knowledge tionem tamquam cognoscentis.
(e7U0TT|fXTi, yvajau;) and ignorance, the object of opinion an d the object of 2. Rep. 4 7 8 A : ’Em<jTT|p.Ti (xev y e 7cou erci tco o v t i , t o o v yvcovac dig e'xet; N a c. A6£a
knowledge m ust be ontologically distinct. C assarino confuses the a rg u ­ 8e, cpapiv, So^afciv; Nod. TH t o c u t o v rntep e7ti<JT7)p.T) ytyvaiaxei, x a i eaTOu. yvaiaTOv
m ent by tran slatin g yvaxsit; som etim es as cognitio and som etim es as scien- T6 x a i SolfacjTov t o auTo; rj aSuvaTov; [...] Ouxouv et t o o v yvcuarov, aXXo Tt av
tia, while scientia is used alternatively to translate both Siavotot and SoljaoTOv rj t o ov eiV); ”AXXo. TA p ’ ouv t o (XT) o v SoljdCei.; f| aSuvaTov xat Sol'daai
t o y e (XT) ov; evvoei 8e. o u x 6 SoljaCcov erci t i cpepet t t |v 8o^av; f) ofov t £ au So^aCeiv
£TCiaTT)[xr).2 ETSo<; and iBea, w hich both m ean “ F o rm ” or “ Id e a ” , are
(xev, So^aCeiv 8e (xr)8ev;
translated indifferently by the scholastic species. Ficino, by contrast, who
has a philosophical u n d e rsta n d in g of the text, consistently reserves a Decembrio: So. Scientia quidem ad ens quemadmodum se habeat agnoscere?
special L atin w ord for each technical use of a given G reek word: cognitio Gla. Videtur. So. Opinionem autem opinari? Gla. Prorsus. So. An ergo id-
for yvtoau;, scientia for £7uaT7|fX7], opinio for Oo<ja, cogitatio for Stavoia, and so dem quod scientia cognoscit, et scibile et [est MS] opinabile erit iddem, aut
impossibile potius esse dicis? [...]& . Si ergo scibile ens erit, aliud preter
forth.
ens erit opinabile? Gla. Aliud. So. An non ens, inquam, opinatur? aut non
O ccasionally the choice of vertens conveys poorly the vertendum, as w hen ens opinari est impossibile? Considera etenim num qui [numquid MS]
C assarino, influenced by C icero, translates to xaXov by honeslum. But opinatur ad aliquid affert opinionem? aut opinari est possibile nihil
C icero was tran slatin g the Stoic to xaXov, “ the h o n o rab le” or “ the opinantem? (op. cit. , f. lOlv)
m orally w o rth y ” , which carries in Stoic philosophy connotations quite
Cassarino: Scientiae quidem in ente ens quale sit cognoscendi?—Certe.—
1 Hankins (1987b), Appendix. Opinationi autem opinandi iudicamus?—Sane.—Numquid id quod scien­
- These terms sometimes seem to be used equivocally by Plato himself (though not in tia cognoscit, idem erit cognoscibile et opinabile, uel impossibile? [...]
this passage), but a translator should of course allow this circumstance to emerge from — Num igitur si ens est quod potest in cognitionem venire, aliud quid erit
philosophical analysis rather than presupposing it in his translation. opinabile quam id quod est?—Aliud.—Num igitur quod non est in opi-
424 PART I A PPEN D ICES 425

nionem cadit, uel impossibile quod non sit opinionem facere? Scito autem filium suum agnoscere g en ito rem ” ; cruvoOcetv how ever is translated with
quod qui opinatur ad aliquod dirigit opinionem, uel potest esse aliquid habitare instead of cohabitare. C assarin o ’s version shows no signs of
opinari et nihil opinari? (op. cit., f. 13 lv)
bow dlerization (BAV, V at. lat. 3346, f. 116v):
Ficino: So. Scientia quidem circa id quod est, ipsum ens ut se habet
cognoscere? Gla. Sane. So. Opinio autem opinari? Gla. Et hoc. So. An Has mulieres horum omnium uirorum communes esse, priuatim autem
idem quod et scientia noscit? eritque idem quod opinione percipitur, et nemini ullam cohabitare, et filios item communes, neque parentem filium
quod scientia? An potius impossibile? [...] So. Nonne igitur si ipsum ens suum cognoscere neque filium parentem.
cognitione percipitur, id quod concipitur opinione aliud quiddam prefer
ipsum ens est dicendum? Gla. Aliud. So. Numquid non ens opinatur? An F icino’s version is also accurate, though he blushes slightly with adherere
impossibile est opinari non ens? Sic autem cogita: nonne quisquis opinatur for auvotxelv instead of the obvious equivalent cohabitare (Platoms opera
ad aliquid opinionem dirigit? An possibile est opinari quidem, opinari
autem nihil? (op. cit., f. 214rb) 1491, f. 2 lOv):

C assarino conjectures e7uaTr|fjt.T) for £7Ucnrr|fjiT),3 thus m aking the subject of Mulieres scilicet has horum uirorum omnes omnium esse communes,
the sentence into (one supposes) a dative of reference; he writes the nullamque privatim alicui adherere, ac rursus communes filios, neque
philosophically m eaningless in ente, instead of the correct circa id quod est patrem filium suum nosse, neque filium suum agnoscere patrem.
of Ficino; he fails to recognize the P latonic idiom e'x61 ( - <*uxd xoc0’ 2. Rep. 461B-E: "Oxav 8 e 8 rj, otpat, at xe yuvalxe<; xai oi avSpei; xou yevvav
auxo) and instead writes quale sit, im plying that the object of knowledge £x|3d>ai xt]v fjXixiav, dcprjaopiv ttou £Xeu0£pou(; auxouc auyyiyveaSai <I> av eOeXaxn,
is som ehow a quality of B eing.4 Ficino recognizes the difference betw een 7tXr)v Guyaxpi xai fjLiqxpi xai xai; xdiv 0uyax£pcov roxiai xai xcd<; ava) piycpot;, xai

Being itself ( to ov = ens ipsum) and the sort of being possessed by objects yuvalxa^ au tcXt|v uiel xai reaxpi xai xoi? xouxcov t'u; xo xaxoo xai ixxi xo dva>, xai
of sense which participate in true being. C assarino does not ( to ov = ens xauxa y’ -rjSri Ttavxa 8 iaxeXeuad[ji£voi TtpoGupeiaGat, paXiaxa pev p.T)8 ’ ei;
excpepetv xuripa p.T]8 e y’ £v, eav yevrixai, eav 8 e xi j3iaarixaL, ouxco xtQevai, ait; oux
or quod est), and D ecem brio om its the vital phrase entirely. Agnoscere is ouaT]^ xpo9 fi<; xto xoiouxa). Kai xauxa p£v y’, Ktprj, pexpiax; Xeyexai; 7xaxepa<; 8 e
b u t one of four w ords D ecem brio uses to translate yvoovat. xai 0uyax£pa<; xai a vuv 8 rj sXeye? nost; 8 iayvcoaovxat dXXrjXcuv; Ou8 apuo<;, rjv 8 ’
Finally, two passages concerning P la to ’s m arital com m unism , as £yd>, aXX’ acp’ % av f][x£pa? xu; auxtov vup.9 ioi; y£vr]xat, pex’ exeivriv Sexaxti) p.7]vi
rendered by the four Q u attro cen to translators: xai ePSopcu 8 f| a av y£vr)xat exyova, xauxa roivxa ixpoaepet xa p£v appeva uiei<;,
xa 8 £ GrjXea 0uyax£pai; ... xa 8 ’ £v exeivou xco yeyovoxa, £v cL ai p.r]x£p£9
1. Rep. 457D: Ton; yuvatxat; xauxat; xd>v avSpaiv xodxouv t o c v t c o v Kcxcac; eivat xai oi 7cax£pe? auxcuv £y£vvcuv aSeXtpdi; xe xai a 8 eXcpou<;' oiaxe, o vuv 8 r) £X£yo(j.ev,
xoiva<;, £8£a 8e pTiSevi p.7)8e[juav auvoixeiv- x a i xou<; rcaiSac; au xotvou*;, x a i pfixe aXXfiXouv [if] aTtxeaGat- a 8 eX<pou<; 8 e xai d8 eX9 di; Scuaei 6 vopoi; auvotxeiv, eav 6
yov£a exyovov e£8£vat xov auxou p.T|x£ rcaiSa yov£a. xXfjpo<; xauxri aujjutiTtxT] xai f; IIuGia jrpoaavatpri.
As was noted in P art II, P ier C an d id o D ecem brio saw fit to obscure the
obvious m ean in g of this passage in his translation (B A V , V at. lat. D ecem brio also censors and glosses this passage (B A V , V at. lat. 10669,
10669, f. 96v): “ M ulieres huiusm odi custodum u iro ru m esse com ­ f. 99r):
m unes, pueros item , n ullam que his sep aratim h a b ita re .” H e also p ro ­
Licere autem viris nisi filie atque matri filiarumque natis matrisque
vides the gloss custodum to u nderline his point th at the com m on maioribus cuicunque commisceri, mulieribus item, nisi filio atque patri
possession of wives applies only to the gu ard ian s. It is unlikely that these cum eorum superioribus inferioribus < que > coire. Et hec postquam in-
are unconscious im provem ents since the C h rysoloras-U berto version iunxerimus, potissimum edicimus: nullum in lucem huiusmodi proferre
om its nothing (B A V , R eg. lat. 1131, f. 21r): “ M ulieres istas uiro ru m partum, nullum si violarit ali oportere.—Gla. Et hec, inquit, mediocriter
talium om nes com m unes, p riu a ti uero nullam nulli aliquatenus a te dicta autumo. Ceterum patres atque filie et que paulo ante dicebas
quemadmodum inter se dignosci quibunt? [Marginal note: Quomodo inter
h ab itare, pueros iteru m q u e com m unes, neque p atrem nepotem neque se dignosci poterunt patres et filii]—So. Si decimo, inquam, mense uel
septimo a die quo quispiam sponsus factus fuerit nascentur, hos omnes
natos appellabit, mares autem filios, femellas quippe filias ... Qui autem
3 And later tpepeiv for <pepet, and xt after the final xe. I assume throughout that illo tempore nati erunt quo patres ac matres ipsorum generabant, fratres
Cassarino s Greek text is Cesena, Bibl. Malatestiana MS D 28, 4 (see App. 10), which ac sorores, ut ne mutuo se tangant, ut premissum est. Fratribus tamen ac
is Burnet’s " M ” . sororibus lex mutuo habitare concedat si sors dederit et Phitia responsa
4 Elsewhere he writes substantia tor ouota, another Aristotelianism.
prestiterint.
 426 PART I

A gain, D ecem b rio ’s changes to the text are not simple borrow ings from
the C hrysoloras-U berto tran slatio n , which reads (A m bros. B 123 sup.,
f. 170v): A P P E N D I X 10

So. Licere autem illis cuicumque uoluerint nisi filie atque matri filiarumque
natis et matris maioribus copulari, mulieribusque iterum, nisi filio atque C A S S A R IN O ’S M A N U S C R IP T S O F P L A T O
patri ac superioribus et inferioribus eorundem, et postquam hec omnia
predixerimus non velle talem partum si fuerit in lucem producere; si aliquid In o rd er to facilitate fu rth er study of C assarin o ’s Plato translations, it will
violauerit, sic ponere tamquam nutritione talis nulla existente.—Gla. E t be useful here to identify the G reek m anuscript he used for his ren d er­
hec equidem, inquit, mediocriter recitantur. Patres uero uel filie et que
modo dicebas, quomodo mutuo dignoscentur?—So. Nullatenus, inquam, ings. A ccording to L egrand, C assarino received this codex from his
sed si decimo mense uel septimo post die quo aliquis sponsus extiterit aliqui teacher J o h n E ugenicus w hen he was still in C onstantinople. As is known
nascerentur, hos filios [natos suprascr. manu Petri Candidi] nuncupabit. from the letters of Filelfo, after the death of C assarino Filelfo tried to ob­
Masculos filios, feminas uero filias ... Q u i autem eo tempore nascerentur, tain from friends in G enoa the Sicilian’s copy of “ Platonis libros et scrip-
quo patres atque matres ipsorum invicem generabant, fratres et sorores, ut ta o m n ia .” 1 It seems likely that the codex rem ained in the possession of
non mutuo se tangerent, quod nuperrime dicebamus. Fratribus vero et
sororibus lex cohabitare concedet, si sors dederit et Phitia simul per respon- one of these friends, P ietro Perleone, who had succeeded C assarino as
sa firmauerit. public schoolm aster of G e n o a .2 For, years later, after P erleo n e’s death in
1463, Filelfo tried once again to obtain a com plete Plato from his brother,
C om parison of this passage with P ier C a n d id o ’s and F icin o ’s versions G iacom o P erleo n e.3
shows the use they both m ade of the earliest Latin version of the Republic. It is highly probable that C a ssa rin o ’s codex which Filelfo vainly sought
Ficino gives (edn. cit., f. 21 lv): to purchase is to be identified w ith C esena, Bibl. M alatestiana M S D 28,
Quando igitur iam mulieres et uiri etatem generationi aptam egressi 4. T his m anu script (which I have seen only on m icrofilm in the Plato
fuerint, licere viris dicemus cuicunque voluerint preterquam filie atque M icrofilm Project at Yale U niversity) is w ritten in a fifteenth-century
matri et filiarum natis matrisue maioribus commisceri, licere et mulieribus G reek h an d an d contains n um erous scholia, m ostly in the hand of the
cuilibet copulari preterquam filio atque patri ac superioribus et inferioribus
eorundem. Cum vero hec omnia mandauerimus, interdicemus partum copyist. It has the single letter “ A .” (for “ A n to n iu s” ?) on f. 4v before
talem si contigerit in lucem produci. Siquid autem coegerit, ita ponere the title page. It contains the first eight tetralogies (the first seven are in
precipiemus quasi eius nulla nutritio sit.—Glau. Hec quoque probe dicun- the T h rasyllan order), all the spurious dialogues, and the Minos. T he fact
tur. Patres vero et matres et ceteri cognati quos memorabas, quomodo in- that it om its the Laws, Epinomis, Epistulae, and Defimtiones m ight seem to
uicem discernentur?—So. Nullo modo, sed omnes quicunque nascentur tell against its identification w ith the codex Filelfo w anted, which con­
decimo mense uel septimo ex ea die qua quis liberis operam dedit masculi
tained, supposedly, all the dialogues of Plato. But in fact Filelfo only had
ab hoc filii, femine filie nominabuntur ... A t eos qui eo tempore nasceren­
tur quo patres ipsorum matresque invicem generabant, fratres atque that inform ation from hearsay ( “ Codicem ilium ... quo Platonis libros
sorores. Atque ita quod modo dicebam, nullo modo se mutuo tangerent. et scripta om nia contineri accept ’) and in any case he m ay not have
Fratribus autem et sororibus lex cohabitationem concedit si sors dederit, et
Pythia simul per responsa firmauerit.
1 Epistolae (1502), f. 42v, letters to Niccolo Ceva and Pietro Perleone.
Ficino reads for fj.r)8’ tit;, and (I suppose) Ytyvexai for yivryzai, and 2 See App. 8A, notes 6 and 7.
3 In the spring and summer of 1463, Filelfo began a correspondence with Michele Or-
so makes the o rd erin g of a b o rtio n into a p rohibition of bastards from the sini, a learned cleric and Venetian citizen, with a view to obtaining through his good of­
state. But the passage has caused difficulties also for m odern scholars.5 fices “ Platonis libros quos omnes uno codice illo contineri accepissem” (see Epistolae
[1502], ff. 130r, 130v, 131v, 136v). The correspondence only ended when Filelfo learned
definitively that the codex was not for sale. See ibid., f. 136v, from 2 August 1463: “ De
illo Platonis pretio nihil est quod respondeam, cum mihi videre videor codicem istum non
5 See The Republic of Plato, ed. J. Adam (Cambridge, 1902), vol. 1, App. IV. esse venalem.” From the letter of 5 June 1463 (ibid., f. 130v) we learn that the codex
was actually in the possession of “Jacobus Perleo Ariminensis iurisconsultus’’. Michele
Orsini was, like Pietro Perleone, a member of the circle of Jacopo Antonio Marcello; see
King, pp. 414-416. See Resta (1959): 222-223, note 4, who also accepts Gabotto’s
hypothesis that the codex sought by Filelfo from Perleone is identical to the one he later
tried to purchase from his brother Giacomo.
428 PART I

know n the nam es of all the Platonic dialogues, for he asked Perleone to
send him a list of the dialogues the codex contained ( “ A d me scribas in-
dicem librorum o m n iu m ac item preciu m et q u idquid scitu opus esse ar- A P P E N D I X 11
b itra b e re ’’). It is, fu rth erm o re, know n th at the C esena m an uscript was
owned by the a n tiq u a ria n G io v an n i M arco da R im in i w ho lived in G E O R G E O F T R E B IZ O N D ’S V E R S IO N S O F
R im ini tow ards the end of the fifteenth cen tu ry and left the codex in 1474 T H E L A W S A N D T H E P A R M E N ID E S
to the F ranciscan friars of the C esen a convent, whence it passed to the
M alatestian a.4 G io v an n i M arco da R im in i was closely associated with In view of the m any questions that have been raised about G eorge’s
the circle of Ja c o p o A ntonio M arcello an d thus w ould have been ac­ m erits as a tra n s la to r,12 it will be useful here to append a short exam ina­
q u ain ted w ith P ietro and G iacom o P e rle o n e .5 tion of G eo rg e’s renderings of the Laws and the Parmenides.2 T h e form er
T h ere is, m oreover, no o th er large codex of P la to ’s w orks w ith which version, as was rem arked in vol. 1, is by far the worse perform ance, the
C assa rin o ’s codex could plausibly be id en tified .6 I have collated Book chief blem ishes being n um erous instances of careless condensation
Five of C a ssa rin o ’s version w ith the m an u script (rep o rted as “ M ’’ in (w hich often m aterially affect the m eaning of the texr) and patches where
B u rn e t’s text, although w ith som e inaccuracies) and find that it agrees the m eaning of the text has been m aliciously distorted. T h ere are a great
closely with readings p eculiar to th at m an u scrip t. Som e exam ples: 450B m any m istakes in attrib u tin g speeches to interlocutors, some of which
8 fj A D , rj F, li M : si Cassarinus; 450C 4 ouv D F M , av A: igitu r Cassarinus; cause extrem e confusion, as Bessarion points o u t.34 Frequently phrases
450D 1 Soxfj M , Soxei A D F: v id eretu r Cassarinus; 453B 2 Xeyajpev A D M , and entire sentences are om itted, and there are a fair n u m b er of m istakes
Xeyofji&v F: d icam us Cassarinus; 453E 5 xocxTiyopeixoti F, xaxTjyopeTxe A D M : in vocabulary and idiom , some of these doubtless in ten tio n al.4
repreh en d en d a ducitis Cassarinus; 456A 1 xai' D, om. A F M , Cassarinus; A good exam ple of the slovenliness of G eo rg e’s execution is offered by
456D 6 7cavxa<; A D M , Tcavxdx; F: om nes Cassarinus; 461A 6 tpuaai; a<; A, a passage at 643C. T h e G reek text runs as follows:
cpuaas FD , %aa; a; M : sacrificans qu ae Cassarinus; 479A 2 xocXas A FD , otov xov piXXovxa aya0ov ecxeoOai yeoopyov r) uva oixo86(i.ov, xov piv
xiva<; M : om. Cassarinus ut saepe hoc vocabulum; 479E 8 aXX’ ou A FD , aXXoc otxobopouvxa xi xcov rauSeuov otxo8opr]pdxajv xprj, xov 8’ au yetopyouvxa,
M : sine neg. vertit Cassarinus; 480A 11 ov A F D , ev M : u n u m Cass. xai opyava exaxepcp apixpa, xcov dX7]0ivdiv pipripaxa, TiapaaxeuaCeiv xov
If this identification is accepted, then it is possible to identify two
1 See Monfasani, George of Trebizond, pp. lb -1 9 .
codices from C a ssa rin o ’s library: M alatestian u s D 28, 4 and Parisinus
2 I have collated with the Greek text only Book I ot the Laws and only 126A— 142A
latinus 6 5 6 7 .7 (i.e., from the beginning to the end of the first hypothesis) of the Prm. I have studied
George’s version of the Laws in BAV, Vat. lat. 2062 (Cat. A, no. 327), a manuscript
annotated by Bessarion and his friend Jean Jouffroy and evidently used by Bessarion in
compiling his Examinatio. (Bessarion s notes are edited by Moniasani in Trapezuntiana, pp.
+ See R. Zazzeri, Sui codici e libn da stampa della Bibl. Malatestiana di Cesena (Cesena, 745-746.)
1887), pp. 236-38. 3 The worst instances in Book I are at 629A 1—B 4 (which has the Cretan Clinias
5 See the article of Baader cited in App. 8A, note 6. quoting the Athenian poet Tyrtaeus, and makes Plato, identified with the Athenian
6 See the list published by N. G. Wilson in Scriptorium 16 (1962): 386-395. The only stranger, seem to be pro-war), 639D 5 (which takes a speech attacking excess in drinking-
known apograph ot M is BAV, Vat. gr. 61, which contains only portions of the Rep., parties out of Plato’s mouth, attributing it instead to the Spartan Megillus), 643B 3, and
Grg. and Phdr. 647D 7 (the entire passage badly smudged).
1 For the latter, see Cat. A, no. 224. Resta in 1959 said of Cassarino’s library that 4 Examples: 630D 8 (existimare for Xeyeiv); 634A 2 (bilem for xuA t|v, George evidently
“ nulla e possibile sapere.” reading xoXf|v mischievously, since he translates correctly elsewhere in the same context;
Bessarion remarks, f. 86v, “ Ita hie biliosum ex claudo fecit qui non modo interpretari
Platonem, sed etiam reprehendere audet” ); 637B 7 (abstinentia for xapxEprjaeu;, “ en­
durance” , making Plato into an extremist); 639A 2 et passim ( lac or ahmentum for xpo<pr|,
where the latter clearly means “ upbringing” or “ education” , a “ mistake” George
makes globally throughout the Laws according to Bessarion, f. 96v); 640D 4 (vfi^ovxd xe
xai aoepov apxovxa: Vigilans atque sapiens ebnorum pnneeps ; the translation of “ sober” by
"awake” , vigilans, converts Plato’s severe drinking-master into a voluptuary); 642B 2 et
passim (npoqzvoq, “ foreign representative” , absurdly translated as Vesta); 648C 8 (volup-
tads for potaxcovT]?, again making Plato into a voluptuary); 630D 3 (ad aliemgenas legum scrip-
tores for ei? xou? noppw vopoGexoix;, misunderstanding the idiom).
 430 PART I A PPEN D IC ES 431

tpecpov-ca auxaiv exaxepov- xai 8t] xai xaiv fjLa0T|[jt.dxa)v oaa avayxaia Xeyojpev xoivuv 7taXtv, £7ttx7]3£up.axa rcota £00’ 6p.lv apupoxipai? xai? xo Xecuv, a
7ipopep.a0Ex£vai rcpop.av0avEiv, oiov x£xxova pExpEiv rj axa0[j,aa0ai xai 7coXEp.ixov yEuovxa xaiv rjSovaiv x a i ou 9 euyovxa auxa?, xaSdxEp xa? Xurca? oux ^pEuyEv, aXX’
itoteueiv izai^ovxa rj xi xaiv xoiouxcov aXXo TtoioGvxa, xat 7T£ipda0at 8ta xaiv a y o v x a ei? p.£aa?, r|vayxaCe x at £7esi0 e xipai? oSoxe xpaxEiv auxaiv;
raiOioiv £X£ta£ xp£7t£tv xa? TjSovd? xai £jti0u[jua<; xaiv teaiSaiv, oi a^ixopivoo?
auxou? Sei x£Xo<; i'xeiv. x£9aXaiov 8r| 7cai8£i'a? X£yofzsv xrjv op0rjv xp09t|v, ij xoG G eorge renders this as (f. 6r),
raiCovxo? xrjv 4>i>xhv zk epcoxa paXiaxa a?Ei xouxou o Sensei yEvopiEvov av8p’ auxov Exponatur igitur similiter quenam studia exercitationesque uestris ciuitati-
xsXeiov Etvai xf\q xoG 7tpdypaxo? apExf]?. bus sint quibus non ut fugiant sed ut superent uoluptates compelluntur, que-
madmodum et dolores non fugere sed uincere honoribus lex persuadet.
( “ For example, a boy who is going to be a good farmer or a good builder
must in the former case play at building toy houses, in the latter case at T h e m istranslation of y&uovxa by superet m ust be intentional since the word
farming, and their tutors should prepare for each miniature tools made in is correctly in terp reted at 635B 6 ( = f. 6v); this m istranslation together
imitation of real ones; and in particular, all necessarily preliminary forms w ith some adjustm ents in the su rro u n d in g context give the im pression that
of knowledge should be learned preliminarily. Thus, the carpenter should
be taught by playing to weigh and measure, the warrior to ride, and the P lato, absurdly, sought to overcom e the influence of pleasure on his
like. We should seek to use games as a means of directing childrens’ citizens by im m ersing them thoroughly in it. A t 656C G eorge goes even
pleasures and desires towards the station they will have to fill when adults. fu rth er and reverses P la to ’s prohibition of cu ltural license so that it
We say indeed that the sum and substance of education is a good up­ becom es a positive exhortation to learn the ways of depravity through
bringing which moves the mind of the child at play to a love of that which
choric dancing:
he will be obliged to exercise perfectly when he becomes a m an.’ ’ )
A © . "O tcoo Sri v op oi xaXd>? sia i xEi'psvoi r\ x a i ei? xov ETesixa xpovov Eaovxai xrjv
TCEpi xa? M ouaa? xaiSEiav xe x a i roxiSiav, oiop.£0a E^£aEa0ai xoi? jcoit)xixoi?, oxutEp
G eorge translates: av auxov xov xonycriv ev xfj tcoitjoei xEp7rri pu0p.ou fj p.£Xou? f| prjp.axo? Exopsvov,
xooxo S iS aaxovxa x a i xou? xaiv £uvop.a>v xa iS a ? x a i v£ou? £v xoi? x°P°t?» ° Tt ^ X tl
Si enim agricolam quendam aut edificatorem probum fore desideramus, aiE£pyaC£<J0at rcpo? ap£X7]v f| p.ox0Tipi'av.
eum in tenera aetate ludentem pueriles quasdam domos aedificare K A . O oxoi 8 y] xooxo y s Xoyov exec rcai? y a p av;
iubebimus aut quedam agriculture instrumenta fabricare, que quamuis in-
utilia sint ad imitationem, tamen utihum uerorumque instrumentorum non parum con- (“ Then is it conceivable that anywhere where there are, or may hereafter be,
ferunt. E x doctrinis etiam ea praediscant que ad rem suam faciunt, quare sound laws in force touching this educative-playful function of the Muses,
futurus faber mensurare ac regula uti, eques futurus equitare aut aliquid men of poetic gifts should be free to take whatever in the way of rhythm,
huiusmodi facere ludendo perdiscat. In omnibus enim ludendo conari melody, or diction tickles the composer’ s fancy in the act of composition and
debemus ut eo studia et cupiditates puerorum uertamus quo ipsos teach it through the choirs to the boys and lads of a law-respecting society,
peruenire desideramus. Caput autem doctrinae infantium alimentum est, leaving it to chance whether the result prove virtue or vice? Clinias-. T o be
quod ludentium animum ad expetendum illud adducet qui [jrfc] in uirili sure, that does not sound rational—decidedly not” (tr. A . E . Taylor).
aetate ipsos uti decreuimus. (M S . cit., f. 11 r-v)
< A th . > U b i ergo leges bene se habent aut futuro tempore bene se habe-
T h is passage contains a gloss ( “ in ten era a e ta te ” ), an inaccurate bunt, ibi musarum disciplinam et iocum poeticis connexum fore putamus.
parap h rase (italicized passage), om issions, a (willful?) m isconstruction Poeta quippe uel rithymo uel cantu uel uerbo innixus delectabit pueros ado-
0alimentum for xrjv op0r)v xp o 9 rjv), and im ports an au th o rita ria n overtone lescentesque docens in chorea quid uirtutem, quid prauitatem efficiat.
Nonne rationabiliter dicitur? < C lin .> Quom odo non?
into the whole which is (here) absent in the G reek; the latter is significant
in view of G e o rg e ’s later criticism s in the Comparatio of P la to ’s excessive As B essarion notes, “ P erversor sane potius q u am conversor Legum
interference w ith personal freedom . P latonis dici adversarius m erito p o te st.”
Some exam ples of G eo rg e’s d isingenuous m istranslations: At 634A In the case of the Parmenides, on the o ther h an d , G eorge is careful and
Plato is advocating that citizens be exposed by degrees to pleasures in accurate, at tim es nearly literal, as in the following passage:5
o rd er to acquire self-control; he asks C linias, “ W hat practices have your
two cities w hich teach a m an the taste o f pleasures w ithout any evasion?
5 I have used the codex umcus, Volterra, Bibl. Guarnacciana, MS 6210 (Cat. A, no. 385),
J u s t as pains were not ev aded— the m an was th ru st into the thick of in comparing George’s translation with the Greek text. For the general interpretation of
them , but forced or persuaded by m arks of h onor to get the m astery of the Parmenides I have followed K. M. Sayre, Plato’s Late Ontology (Princeton, 1983) and have
th e m ” (tr. A. E. T aylor). used F. M. Cornford’s Plato and Parmenides (London, 1939) for some specific points.
 432 A PPEN D IC ES 433
PART I

rioXXa piv xal aXXa, 9 <xvai, [iiytaTov oe8 . el' "i; (pair] ptriSe ;rpoaf|xstv aura
t o e
Parmenides, 12 6 C -12 7E, trans. Trebizond
yiyvtooxeaQai ov-ca -totauta old 9 ap.Ev 8 slvat tot
e iv ] , ttl) tauta Xeyovti oux av
e io t
Sed modo apud [secundum s.s. ] auurn cognomen sibi equestri exercitationi
e'xot ttp evOEtljaaGai ott ciieuoetat, el pr) tcoXXoov psv toyoi epTCEipo^ tov 6 plurimum studet, et si opus est, eamus ad ipsum; modo enim hinc domum protec-
dp.9 ta[BT]t(iv xal pr) a 9 uf|£, G X 8 i ~<xw TioXXd xal -oppcoSev TopayptatsuopLEvotj
e e o i
tus est, habitat autem prope in Mehta. His dictis iuimus et dorm Antifonem in-
tou svOstxvupEvou ErceaGai, aXX’ d7ot0avoi; I 6 ayvcoata dvayxaCtov auta Eivat
e tj
uenimus, frenum quoddam fabro ut aptaret tradentem __ D ixit autem ipsos
( 133B).
diuertisse apud ipsum Pithodorum extra pomeria in Ceramico, et eo peruenisse
Socratem a/feuque compiures cum Socrate. cupientes scripta Zenonis audire—
M ulta, inquit, etiam alia sunt, seel hoc maximum: si quis dicat non posse tunc enim primum ab illis Athenas fuisse delata et fuisse tunc Socratem muenem
ipsas cognosci cum sint huiusmodi quales dicimus oportere'species esse. ualde. ... Sermontbusque lectis ualde parum reliquum fuisse, quando se in-
Cum ergo illi qui hec dicit non poterit aliquis demonstrate quia falsa dicit trasse in domum una cum Parmenide, Pithodorus aiebat, secumque
nisi multarum rerum peritus sit qui dubitat et ingeniosus et cupidus sequi Aristotelem qui de triginta uiris unus fuit. ... Si multa sunt entia, quod
demonstrantem multa valde et remotissima tractantem, nec non necesse sit, ipsa similia et dissimilia esse, idque esse impossibile. Nam nec
verisimiliter dicere videbitur qui credere coget incognoscibiles ipsas esse. (f. dissimilia similia esse, nec similia dissimilia esse possibile esse. Nonne sic diets?—
68 r) Sic, Zeno respondit. — Ergo, inquit Socrates, si impossibile est dissimilia similia
esse et similia dissimilia. impossibile [certe canc. ] etiam est multa esse.
Nevertheless, as a rule— and especially in the m ore “ litera ry” passage
at the beginning o f the dialogue— G e o rg e ’ s translation does not go to the It is clear that we are not dealing here with a mere stylistic rijacunento
extremes o f literalness that characterized the m edieval translation o f o f a m edieval rendering, but a fundam entally new version based in the
M oerbeke. George in fact evidently consulted the m edieval translation, first instance on the Greek text; but George was evidently w orking back
although he would have had its help only for the initial portion o f the and forth between the Greek text and M o erb eke’ s translation. It is note­
dialogue, up to the end o f the first hypothesis (1 4 2 A ). It is very likely that w o rthy that George recognizes the historical allusion to the regime of the
he used one o f the copies owned by C ardin al C usanus/’ T h i r t y , which M oerbeke had mistaken for the age o f Aristoteles (the
oligarch, not the philosopher); the mistake nicely illustrates why literal
Parmenides, 12 6 C -12 7E, trans. Moerbeke7 translations are not necessarily faithful translations.
A s in the case o f the Laws, there are a few instances where one suspects
Quoniam nunc quidem secundum avumque et eiusdem nominis in equestri George o f purposely twisting the m eaning o f the text w ith a view to
secundum plurima conversatur. Sed, si oportet, eamus ad ipsum; modo sabotaging Pla to ’ s reputation am ong the La tin s . A t 1 2 7 B Cephalus
enim hinc domum descendit, habitat autem prope in Melite. Hec cum dix- remarks that Ze n o was said to have been Parm enides’ boyfriend: xal
issemus, ibamus, et apprehendimus Antifontem domi, frenum quoddam
fabro tradentem preparare. ... Residere autem ipsos inquit apud XeysaGat auxov [i.e ., Zrjvtova] 7tat8txa xou FlappevlSou yeyovevat.3 George
Pvthodorum extra parietem in Tegulario; ibi itaque et pervenisse translates, “ Dicebaturque florem etatis Parm enidi prebuisse,” “ it was
Socratemque et alios aliquos cum ipso multos, desiderantes audire Zenonis said that Ze n o had surrendered his virg inity to Parm enides” . (Bessarion,
litteras—tunc enim ipsas primo ab illis delatas esse—, Socratem autem esse who corrected the manuscript in a num ber o f places, corrects “ florem
tunc valde iuvenem. ... et esse valde modicum adhuc residuum sermonum
etatis . . . prebuisse” to “ amatus . . . fuisse” .) A t 130B George foists a
qui legebantur, quando ipseque superingredi inquit Pvthodorus extra et
Parmenidem cum ipso et Aristotelem triginta annorum entem ... Si multa F o rm o f E v il on Pla to ’ s intelligible cosmos, a perversion o f the text which
sunt que entia, ut ergo oportet ipsa similiaque esse et dissimilia; hoc autem could not but make Plato appear dangerously heretical to La tin readers.8 9
utique impossibile; neque enim que dissimilia similia neque similia
dissimilia posstbile est esse? Non sic dicis?—Sic, dicere Zenonem. — Igitur 8 For the meaning of the term reatStxa, a terminus techmcus in Greek homosexual roman­
si impossibile que dissimilia similia esse et que similia dissimilia, im­ ticism, see K. J. Dover’s edition of the Symposium (Cambridge, 1980), p. 4; in LSJ, p.
possibile utique et multa esse; si enim multa sint, patientur utique im- 1287, and most pre-twentieth century dictionaries the word is given a more respectable
possibilia? but less accurate meaning. The translation of Moerbeke merely transliterated with
"pedica” ( CPM A 3: 6).
9 The Neoplatonist Amelius, a student of Plotinus, had posited a form of Evil, but this
was rejected by later pagan Neoplatonists, esp. Proclus, and of course by all Christian
Neopiatonists. See Asclepius, In Nic. Anth. 44.3-5, ed. Taran, p. 32; Proclus, Platonic
See Klibanskv I 1643), p. 304, and the description ot codices C, (6 , and V in CPM A, Theology, ed. Saffrev-Westerink, p. 98. lines 16-20. It will be remembered that
vnl. 3. Manicheanism was one of the heresies with which George charged Plato in the Com-
7 Ibid., 3. 5-6. paratio.
434 PART ( A PPEN D ICES 435

W here Parm enides says, oiov Sixaiou xi e!8o? auxo xa0’ auxo xai xaXou xai xa p.ev eiSri xauxa ujarcep ixapa8eiyp.axa caxavat ev xfj cpuaei, xa 8e aXXa xouxot?
ayaOou xai roxvxcov au xdiv xotouxcov, G eorge renders, “ sicut iusti speciem eotxevat xat etvat opotcopaxa, xat r| peQeq? auxr] xoi? aXXot? yiyveaOat xd>v etStov
q u an d am ipsam per seipsam et bom et mali et aliorum talium . ’’ (Bessarion oux aXXr) xi? ?| eixaa0fjvai auxot?. (132D 1-4)
corrects to “ et pulchri et h o n esti” .) Less clearly, at 141E an om ission ("T hese Forms are as it were patterns fixed in the nature of things; the other
and some o th er m in o r changes G eorge m akes yields the im pression that things are made in their image and are likenesses; and this participation they
Plato did not believe in the existence of the O n e (or G o d ).10 come to have in the Forms is nothing but their being made in their im­
age” .—tr. F. M. Cornford)
eaxiv ouv ouata? otico? av xi pexaaxot aXXco? 7) xaxa xouxcov xi; Oux eaxtv.
ou8apa>? apa xo £v ouat'a? ptexeyei- oux i'otxev. ouSapco? apa eaxt xo ev. ou Has species, arbitror, firmas in natura quasi exemplaria stare, cetera vero
9 atvexat. ou8’ apa ouxco? eaxiv aSaxe ev etvat.
ipsis similia esse et esse, ut ita dicam , similiamenta, et hec participatio ceteris
a speciebus fit non alia quedam quam quia similia ipsis sunt (f. 67v)
("Is there a way for something to participate in being apart from some of
these ways?—There is not. — In no way, then, does the One participate in T o confuse the aetiological relation of im age with the em pirical relation
being. — It would seem not. — In no way then, does the One exist. — It seems of sim ilarity obscures hopelessly the notion of particip atio n , m aking it dif­
not. — Nor then does it exist even to the extent of ‘being’ O n e.’’)
ficult, for exam ple, to grasp the n atu re of the fallacy in the fam ous “ third
Estne igitur modus quo aliquid essentia poterit participare preter istos? m a n ” arg u m en t w hich is bro u g h t up shortly after this p assag e.12 (George
Minime. Nullo igitur pacto ipsum unum est. Videtur. Nec igitur sic ut repeats the e rro r at D6 w ith “ illi assim ilato” for xcp eixaa0evxt.) T he
unum sit. (f. 72v) quoted passage also contains the odd gloss “ firm as” and confuses p ar­
T hese passages, how ever, are exceptional. In m ost of the dialogue, ticipated objects (xoi? aXXoi?) w ith their corresponding Form s (xa>v ei8a>v).
G eorge seems to have rendered as carefully and accurately as he knew A n o th er e rro r (of m any) stem m ing from an insufficient grasp of P lato’s
h o w .11 T h e great weakness of G eo rg e’s version of the Parmenides lies not ontology is m ade at 134A 7, where the distinction betw een intelligible and
so m uch in any carelessness or wilfull m isrep resen tatio n of Plato, but sensible reality is confused by the translation “ quod est alicuius rerum
rath er in G eo rg e’s evident failure to u n d e rstan d the philosophical e rit” for exaaxou xcov ovxoov o eaxtv (Ficino translates existentium). At 137D
arg u m en ts well enough to translate them correctly. At 132B-C, for in­ 2-3 et passim G eorge (for all his supposed an ti-P latonism ) chooses to read
stance, G eorge adopts as a tran slatio n of vo7]fxa, “ intelligible ob ject’’, the a P latonic ontology into P arm en id es’ m onism , reading “ est u num ip­
phrase conceptus mentis, which im poses a false m entalism o r abstractionism s u m ” for ev auxo eivai (auxo being here pronom ial) an d “ Si u num erit ip­
on P la to ’s theory of cognition. T h u s at C 6 , w hen P lato wishes to show sum u n u m ” for P arm en id es’ ei ev eaxai xo ev. At 130A 8 George
that thought m ust have (or be assim ilated to) an intelligible object, the erroneously takes Xoyoi in a rhetorical sense ra th e r th an the intended
logical sense: cl)? a^io? ei ayaa0ai xfj? op[xfj? xfj? erci xou? Xoyou? “ dignus ad-
key phrase, xouxo xo vooupevov ev, “ this (really existing) intelligible object
m ust be o n e ,’’ is interp reted scholastically as “ illud quod m ente con- m iratione es p ro p ter eloquentiae stu d iu m ” (f. 66v); the mistake is
cipitu r u n u m esse.” F u rth er dow n on the sam e page a still m ore serious repeated at 135D 3.
e rro r arises w hen G eorge equates the notions of “ im a g e ” (eixcov) and G eorge, like the other hum anistic translators and unlike Ficino, fails to
“ the sim ilar” (xo opoiov). establish reg u lar L atin equivalents for technical philosophical term s in
P la to ’s text; thus, he translates urco0eai? alternatively as positio (128D 5)
an d suppositio (127D 6); a7topia as dubitatio (130C 3), questio (129E 6), and
10 Of course in the Prm. and in the Neoplatonic tradition generally it is asserted that difficultas (133A 8); i8ea asjydea (133A 3) or species (133C 8); ouaia as essentia
the one is "beyond Being’’ in the sense of being causatively and ontologically prior to
existents, but George’s translation seems to suggest that Plato is an atheist.
(133C 4) o r substantia (133A 8); participare is used to translate both peOe^ei
11 It is worth noting that in one place at least George made a conjecture later borrowed (140E 4) and pexeivai (1 4 ID 8); and so forth.
by Ficino and now generally accepted by editors of the dialogue. At 137A 6, George In sum , G eorge as a tran slato r of philosophical texts suffers from some
writes mare, (Ficino pelagus) evidently conjecturing tUXixyoi; for the 7tXfj0o<; of the MSS.
of the sam e weaknesses as his h u m anist predecessors and contem poraries,
Despite George’s best efforts, there are still a number of slips in vocabulary and idiom,
such as at 132D 7, “ Erit aliqua imaginatio’’ for sort xt? prixavri or 130A 4 "in singulis’’ despite his philosophical train in g and superior com m and of G reek.
tor ecp exaaxou, "at every moment’’, or 127E 11 "vestigium" for texpriptov, (here
" proof’ or "evidence"), or 134E 3 "periculo cogis” for xtvSuveuet. For Ficino’s use of
Trebizond’s translation of the Prm., see App. 18A. 12 See Cornford, Plato and Parmenides, pp. 93-94. The distinction between image and
similarity is of fundamental importance in Neoplatonic metaphysics.
 A PPEN D ICES 437

on Pletho of 1444 asserted that m ost of P leth o ’s auditors had had small
acquaintance with philosophy: “ W e know who were the devotees of
APPENDIX 12 Plato recently defeated in Italy, for whose sake [Pletho] claims to have
u n d ertak en his treatise; we saw m any persons th ronging round him
P L E T H O ’S IN F L U E N C E IN T H E L A T E R Q U A T T R O C E N T O there, who have about as m uch share in philosophy as he in d an cin g ” . 3
Scholarius then goes on to rem ark that the interests of P leth o ’s hearers
In P art I I I .3 of vol. 1 it was asserted that P leth o’s influence in the later w ere confined to literary subjects: they were interested perhaps in com ­
Q uattro cen to had been greatly exaggerated in the secondary literature, p arin g H o m er and V ergil or C icero and D em osthenes, but hardly equal
and that such influence as he had was exercised via Bessarion and his to grasping the differences betw een Plato and A ristotle. T his, of course,
circle, rath er than directly. I have arg u ed elsewhere that F icino’s is polem ic, but it m ust have had some plausibility, as Scholarios' work
fam ous statem ent that Pletho inspired C osim o d e ’M edici to found “ a was sent for approval to M arcus E ugenicus, who had been present at
kind of A cad em y ” is in fact to be taken as m eaning that C osim o ac­ the C o u n cil.4 Pletho, in replying to Scholarius, m entioned three persons
quired a G reek m an u scrip t of P la to ’s works from Pletho which he subse­ as am ong his Italian acquaintance: Ugo Benzi, the Sienese professor of
quently donated to Ficino as part of his patronage of philosophical m edicine; Pietro V itali of C alab ria, the scholasticallv-educated abbot of
translation in F lo re n c e .1 H ere it is my aim to show why I believe G ro ttaferrata; and Paolo T oscanelli, the Florentine m athem atician and
Pletho's influence on W estern P latonism , both in person and through cosm ographer. P robably he om itted any m ention of his purely literary
his w ritings, was m uch slighter than has often been supposed. acquaintance so as not to give color to S cholarius’ charges. But we can
So far as P leth o ’s personal influence at the C ouncil of Florence is con­ with reasonable probability add the nam es of A eneas Silvius Pic-
cerned, there is no evidence that Pletho ever visited the W est, or had colom ini, who describes a d in n er party in F errara at w hich Pletho must
learned Latin or Italian, before his arrival at V enice in 1437, when he have been present, and G u arin o V eronese, who acted as a translator for
m ust have been in his seventies. It is probable, then, that any teaching the G reek delegation in both F errara and F lorence.5 Filelfo, we know,
he may have done was done th ro u g h in te rp re te rs— not a way of teaching m et him in Bologna after the C ouncil and was deeply im pressed by his
likely to be deeply influential. Even m ore problem atic for those who philosophical know ledge, but there is no suggestion in any of Filelfo's
believe in the im p o rtan ce of Pletho for Italian hum anism is the task of w ritings that he was acquainted with the m ore esoteric side of P leth o ’s
identifying those W esterners who atten d ed his inform al “ lectu res” in beliefs, which Pletho was in any case careful to confine to initiates of his
Florence. Aside from F icin o ’s u n tru stw o rth y late report of C o sim o ’s school.6 G arin and M asai have pointed to evidence that Pletho studied
presence, we have firm evidence only for G regorio T ifern ate. T ifernate, B ru n i’s G reek treatise On the Constitution of the Florentines, which may
it is true, did translate in 1457 a N eo pvthagorean w ork falsely ascribed have been w ritten for the benefit of G reek visitors to Florence d uring
to T im aeus of Locri; as this w ork is alluded to in the De differentiis, it the C ouncil, but it is very unlikely that the aged B runi, by now a con­
is possible that the tran slatio n is a late sign of P lethonian influence.2 But
T ifern ate had studied u n d e r Pletho at M istra after the C ouncil, so that
any “ Plethonian influ en ce” is likely to be the result of this longer con­
3 Oeuvres completes de Gennade Scholarios, ed. L. Petit, VI. Jugie, and X. A. Siderides,
tact rath er than of a few lectures in Florence. Scholarius in his attack 8 vols. (Paris, 1928-36), 4: 4, lines 2-6: xoo<; §£ vuv nXaxcavoi; r|xxdifi.EVOo<; ev IxaXta, otg
cpiqat x<*piCoB£vo4 x*)v xotaoxT|v TtpaypaxEtav Xa(kiv etxi vouv, 1'ap.Ev xivei; dai, xai Ecapoov rtoXXoi.
tu avopi ai)fYivojj.£vout; auxoix; exec oi? xoaouxov pixEaxi cpiXoaocpiou;, oaov auxa> nXrjBoovi ocy-
1 See my article "Cosimo de’Medici and the ‘Platonic Academy’,’’ forthcoming in the riaxtxfji;.
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. 4 Woodhouse, p. 238.
- On Tifernate see G. Mancini in Archivto storico italiano 81 (1923). Tifernate’s transla­ 5 In Guarino’s Epistolario (ed. Sabbadini, 1:366-371) he mentions a learned Greek
tion of ps -Timaeus Locrus (inc. prol. .Marcus Tullius qui ut quidam referunt; uic. vers. Platonist he had met in Ferrara and induced to give a discourse to him De conternnenda
I'imaeus Locrus haec inquit: dutis esse universarum rerum causas) survives in at least morte, which discourse (as it appears in the letter) is in tact a digest of the Axwchus. Sab­
file MSS: Ambros. (,) 46 sup. (a. 1457: see Iter 1:339); Lucca. Bibl. Governativa 1396. badini and others have plausibly identified this Greek Platonist as Pletho. See Hankins
1. 190rt.: Oxtord, Balliol 131 (from William Grav); Vat. hit. 4037. If. 126r-130r ( Iter 2: (1987b), note 36.
366): and Vat. gr. 1033 (Iter 2: 388: Kristeller corrects his misattribution ol the transla­ " See Filelfo’s adulatory letter in Legrand. p. 48 (1 March 1441), and Woodhouse.
tion lo Joannes Corsms in Iter 5 (ts 888 1). For Filelfo’s translation from Tinmens Locrus. p. 158. See also vol. 1, p. 220, tor further evidence that Pletho's '‘pagan’’ tendencies
s e e Text 30.
were little known (or not taken seriously in that golden age of invective).
438 PART I A PPE N D IC ES 439

firm ed A ristotelian, w ould have found attractive P le th o ’s m etaphysical evidence, how ever, that he knew the full text of the Laws or any of
relig io n .7 P leth o ’s other m ore esoteric works. H e did have a copy of the treatise De
O th e r persons, m ore speculatively, have been linked w ith Pletho m ere­ Jato, b u t, far from being influenced by it, he w rote som e highly critical
ly on grounds of geographical proxim ity: N icholas of C u sa (who travelled an n o tatio n s into the m a rg in s.11 Filelfo too ow ned a copy of the De differen­
with him and the rest of the G reek delegation from G reece, but was very tiis w hich he a n n o ta te d ,12 and D ecem brio introduced silently a tran sla­
im perfectly acq u ain ted with G reek), L apo da C astiglionchio, G iovanni tion of the opening p arag rap h into a letter of 1467.13 O f the work where
T ortelli, Poggio, A urispa, Leon B attista A lberti, and A m brogio T rav er- Pletho m ost fully revealed his religious th o ught, the Law s, even G eorge
sari (who acted as a tran slato r at the C ouncil). W hat is striking, how ever, of T reb izo n d seems to have had only hearsay know ledge.14 It is true that
in this shower of nam es is th at only in the case of T ifern ate can we docu­ Jo h a n n e s Sophianos (betw een 1458 and 1464) translated a fragm ent of
m ent an instance in w hich Pletho seem s to have aroused in a W estern the w ork for C usanus, but it is unlikely that C u san u s knew of the larger
scholar an intelligent interest in the sort of m etaphysical, logical, and treatise from w hich it was e x tra c te d .15 Sophianos also translated P leth o ’s
scientific questions discussed in the De difjerentiis. T h e few traces we have De virtutibus, a version w hich survives in a single m anuscript at the
of Pletho in the works of L atin h u m an ists do not license us to suppose Biblioteca A ngelica in R om e, b u t this w ork was unconnected with the
that he was for them an y th in g b u t a shadow y and enigm atic presence. Plato-A ristotle controversy and did not contain any of P leth o ’s m ore
T his im pression is reinforced by the textual tradition of the De differen- radical theological id eas.16
tiis and P leth o ’s oth er surviving works. M onfasani, arg u in g against T h e other G reek texts of the controversy have also left few traces of
M asai’s belief in the im m ediate im pact of the De difjerentiis in the W est, L atin readership. Pico had also evidently seen a letter Pletho had w ritten
points out th at there exists no fifteenth-century L atin version of P letho’s in reply to some inquiries of B essarion.1718M onfasani has recently iden­
De difjerentiis; that there are no references to it in a L atin au th o r for the tified an anonym ous L atin text as a translation (ca. 1462) by Nicolaus
20 years following its com position; and that M arsilio Ficino, the true S ecundinus of a passage of C allistu s’ G reek treatise defending T heodore
founder of F lorentine P latonism , was only six years old at the tim e of the G aza against M ichael Apostolis; S ecundinus ap parently intended to in­
C ouncil of U n io n .8 Ficino, to be sure, ow ned a copy of the De difjerentiis sert the passage in his own treatise De finibus bonorum et malorum.16 T he
and the Reply to Scholarios,9 and m entions the form er text in his Theologia
platonica (X V . 1). H e also knew P le th o ’s edition of the Chaldaean Oracles 11 See A. Keller, “ Two Byzantine Scholars and Their Reception in Italy," J W C I 20
(1957): 363-370. I argue in App. 17 that Ficino only knew Pletho’s writings after 1463,
and derived from it his notion of a “ Z o ro astrian trin ity ” . 10 T h ere is no
when he had already formulated his notion of an “ ancient theology” .
12 Laur. LXXX, 24; see A. M. Bandini, Cat. codd. graec. Bibl. Med. Laur., 3:213-215
7 A manuscript of Bruni’s work, which was composed in Greek on the model of the and Mostra della biblioteca di Lorenzo nella Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana ... (Florence, 1949),
constitutions in Aristotle’s Politics, was discovered in Venice with annotations by Pletho; p. 61, no. 206.
see R. and F. Masai, “ L’oeuvre de G. Gemiste Plethon,” Bulletin de I’Academie royale de 13 See Text 52P.
Belgique, Classes des lettres (1954), p. 548. 14 See Mohler 3:302-303.
3 George of Trebizond, pp. 202-203. There exist at least 16 Greek manuscripts of the De 15 For Sophianos’ translation of Pletho’s De jato from the L aw s , see P. O. Kristeller,
differentiis, mostly of the sixteenth century. There are also three Latin translations of the “ A Latin Translation of Gemistos Plethon’s De Jato by Johannes Sophianos Dedicated
work dating from the sixteenth century: that of Nicolaus Scutellius of Trent (Vienna to Nicholas of Cusa,” in Nicold Cusano agli inizi del mondo moderno (Florence, 1970), pp.
ONB, MS 10056, ff. 155r-22lv; see Iter 3:66-67); an anonymous version in Pisa, Bibl. 175-93. As Kristeller notes, the De Jato had a certain circulation separately from the larger
Univ. MS 234, inc. Qui longo ante nos tempore (see U. Morini and L. Ferrari, Autografi work. Kristeller has also pointed out the interesting Christianization of 0eot to Deus in
e codici di letton dell ’Aleneo pisano [ 1902], 80; and Catalogo di manoscritti filosqfici nelle biblioteche the tract, which Sophianos may have done to disguise Pletho’s paganising tendencies to
italiane 3: 93); and the version of George Chariander printed by Perna at Basel in 1574. Cusanus, who would hardly have been sympathetic. Sophianos was patronized also by
The Greek text was first printed by Bernardo Donato (Venice, 1540; Paris, 1541). Migne Bessarion, and it may have been on his advice that the treatise was offered to (not re­
reprinted the text of Donato with the version of Chariander in PG 160: 889-934. This quested by) Cusanus.
text is now happily superseded by the edition of Lagarde (q.v.). 16 See Iter 2:93 for the manuscript; for the fortuna of the work in the sixteenth century,
9 Rice. 76; see Mostra, pp. 55-57, no. 43. Ficino owned the treatise DeJato (a relatively see B. Tambrun-Krasker, Plethon, Traite de vertus: Edition critique, introduction, traduction et
innocuous part of the Laws which circulated separately; see note 15), but was highly commentaire, Philosophi Byzantini, 3 (Leiden, 1988).
critical of Pletho’s determinism; see the marginalia transcribed by Gentile in ibid. See 17 Garin (1979), p. 297; Garin does not indicate the text, but it can be identified with
also above, p. 274, note 21, for evidence that Ficino may not have read the Reply to the letter printed in Mohler 3:458-463.
Scholarios very carefully. 18 “ A Philosophical Text of Andronicus Callistus Misattributed to Nicholas Secun­
10 For Ficino’s knowledge of Pletho’s edition of Chaldaean oracles, see App. 17, dinus,” in Renaissance Studies in Honor of Craig Hugh Smyth (Florence, 1985), 1:395-406.
below; tor his use of the Zoroastrian “ trinity” , see Wind, p. 243. See also Cat. C, no. 2.
440 PART I

evidence that G eorge o f'T re b iz o n d knew any of Scholarios’ w ritings is

unclear, but he evidently knew a few o f th e m .19 B ut none of the other
twenty-odd G reek w ritings from the controversy, including most of A P P K N D I X 13
Pletho s Laws, his Reply to Scholarios, and Scholarios’ own Defense of Aristo­
tle, are to my knowledge quoted by any L atin h u m anist or philosopher B E S S A R IO N ’S D E B T T O P R O C L U S IN B O O K II O F T H E
of the fifteenth century. C A L U M N IA T O R
It seems therefore best to accept M o n fa sa n i’s hypothesis (which echos
Scholarios view) that Pletho had little im m ediate im pact on W estern Bessarion, like Ficino, had a rem arkably broad knowledge ot ancient Pla­
scholars because the persons in terested in Plato were too unsophisticated tonism , and borrow s in his Calumniator from a wide variety of pagan and
philosophically to have fully u n d ersto o d his exposition. T his hypothesis C h ristian Platonists, including Plotinus, Iam blichus. Porphyry, Olym -
is further supported by w hat we have already seen of the difficulties even piodorus, O rig en , G regory ot Nyssa. G regory N azianzenus, Basil ot
com petent H ellenists like B runi and C assarino encountered in C aesarea, Boethius and A ugustine. But. again like Ficino. it was Proclus
translating P lato ’s m etaphysical discussions. It was only in the 1460s that above all from whom he derived his view ot Plato s dialogues as poetic or
Italian hum anists developed the philosophical interest and sophistication literary reflections of a system atic theology which could, through careful
to receive fully the N eoplatonic legacy of late a n tiq u ity and the B yzantine in terp retatio n , be reconstructed in an orderly tashion. T his Proclan ap ­
M iddle Ages. A nd the p rim ary legator was not Pletho, but C ardinal proach to the Platonic corpus Bessarion probably absorbed from his
Bessarion. teacher Pletho, who was chiefly responsible for the Proclan renaissance of
the fifteenth c e n tu rv ,1 but it was no doubt m ade m ore attractive owing to
the criticism s frequently voiced by W estern critics of Plato, preem inently
11 G °>ie version (a. 1466) ot the preface to his Comparatio, George speaks of having G eorge, of the confusion and disorder in P lato 's works. T h e Proclan and
read "nonnullorum adversus Gernistum et pro Aristotele scripta graece” ; see A. Mer- other sources for B essarion's interpretation of Plato in the Calumniator
cati, "Le due lettere di Giorgio di Trebisonda a Maometto II” , Onentalia Christiana
Periodica 9 (1943): 97. George would not have mentioned Scholarios since he was even deserve a m uch m ore thorough treatm ent than I am able to give them here;
more hostile to the schismatic Greeks than to the Bessarion circle; to use modern political in this A ppendix I wish m erely to suggest the extent to which Bessarion s
slang, it Bessarion and his Academy were "pink ’, the renegade Orthodox clergymen system atic reconstruction of P lato ’s theology in Book II is indebted to P ro ­
were "red".
clus’ Platonic Theology. T his debt has hitherto passed unnoticed, in part
because the ap p aratu s to M o h ler’s edition as a rule gives only the ultim ate
source of B essarion’s citations of Plato and A ristotle; in fact, as we shall
see, they are often m ediated by Proclus (as well as Sim plicius, A lexander
of A phrodisias, Plotinus, and St. G regory N azian zen u s).2*
T h an k s to the efforts of H. D. Saffrey and L. G. W esterink. Bessarion s
close study of P roclus’ m asterpiece is now well know n. D escribing Bes-

1 Saffrev-Westerink. 1: clviii-clix: tor Bessarion's debt to Pletho. see vol. 1. pp. 218f.
See also Th. Nikolaou. "Georgios Gemistos Plethon und Proklos: Plethons Xeoplatonis-
mus im Beispiel seiner Psvchologie, " Jahrbuch der Oesterreichischen B y za n tim stik 32 (1982):
387-99.
- This is not of course to sav that Bessarion did not devote careful study to the dialogues
themselves; for Bessarion's work on the text ot Plato, see H. D. Saffrey. "Un exercice de
latin philosophique, autographe du Cardinal Bessarion, in M iscellanea rnarciana di studi
hessanonei (Padua, 1976), pp. 371-374. In his intermittent efforts to reconcile Plato and
Aristotle, Bessarion often relies on Simplicius, e g., at C alum niator 1.6 = N1oilier 2:70 where
he argues (in effect) that Plato had also believed in the quintessence, a passage clearly
dependent on Simplicius, In A nstotelis hbrum D ecaeto, ed. j. Heiberg, CA(r XII. p. 781. See
a l s o C alum niator 11.12 = Mohler 2:20()f., which relies heavily on Simplicius, In Phys. A r is t..
ed. H. Diels, C A C IX. p. 45 1f.; X. p. 1249f. More usually he relies on Alexander of Aphro-
442 PART I A PPEN D IC ES 443

sa rio n ’s m an u scrip t, M onacensis graecus 547, they w rite, “ les m arges de Bessarion is following very closely P roclus’ own in terp retatio n of those
ce mianuscrit sont rem plies de notes, conjectures ou corrections ... [du] passages.8
C ard in al B essarion. ... le M onacensis gr. 547 ... a ap p a rte n u au C ardinal Space here perm its only a few exam ples of the influence of Proclus’ in ­
Bessarion, qui, plusieurs fois au cours de sa vie, a lu et relu dans ce livre terp retatio n upon B essarion’s own reading of the dialogues. O ne of the
la Theol. pla t., l ’a annotee d ’un b out a I’a u tre , a corrige son texte et a pro­ characteristics of the exegesis of the A th en ian school of N eoplatonism is
pose des conjectures d ont plusieurs sont a reten ir. Bessarion s ’est servi des an increasing fascination with the m ysterious concepts of L im it (rc£poc<;) and
pages blanches p o u r ses notes p e rso n n e lle s.” 3 It is surely no coincidence the U nlim ited (a7tstpla) m entioned in the Philebus and a few other places
that B essarion’s fam iliar, Pietro B albi, used a n ear relative of the in P la to ’s later dialogues. Proclus saw L im it an d the U nlim ited as the
M onacensis codex as the basis for the L atin version of the w ork he p ro ­ ultim ate constitutive principles of Being, whose im age o r analogue, in the
duced for C a rd in a l N icolaus C u s a n u s .4 A nd it is, m oreover, very likely phenom enal world, was the triad of F orm , M a tte r, and the m aterial
that Bessarion used the M onacensis codex of Proclus as one of his chief substances they co n stitu ted .9 T h is reading of the Philebus is also clearly that
tools in com piling the Calumniator. T h is is suggested by several pieces of of B essarion, who is anxious to refute G eo rg e’s charge th at Plato, like the
evidence. T h e first is a note on the co nvertibility of Being and the O ne G nostics and M anicheans, had regarded m a tte r as an ultim ate principle
Bessarion m ade in the second book o f P ro c lu s’ w ork, a note in which the in dependent of G o d ’s creative power. Q u o tin g the Philebus, Bessarion
C ard in al tries to reconcile the position o f Proclus with A ristotle’s w rites: ev youv x<£ OtXr|Pq> and xi]<; 7tpo xou Srjpioupyou x£xay[xevT)<; xal-eo<; xt ]v
Metaphysics (2, 1003b);5 this reconciliation ap pears again in the Calum­ u X tjv aatpw? u<ptaxa<; StapprjBriv cpTjatv [Phil. 16C and 23C] e? £>v xat xolc, awpaai

niator,6 In an o th er instance B essarion copied the q u o tations of P orphyry xal xou; itaatv eivai xtjv auaxaatv ... et xotvuv xat xa aaipaxa ex rcepaxoi; xat
contained in C yril of A le x a n d ria ’s Contra Julianum into the M onacensis aTcetplac; iaxt, nipcit; 8e ouSev aXX’ f| xo el8o<; eaxtv— exetvo yap xo rcepaxoGv xat
codex, extracts which correspond exactly to passages cited in the Calum­ opt'Cov xr|v 6'X t)v — , SfjXov co<; r\ uXr] obteipia eaxt xe xat xaXefxat evxauQa. rcaaav
niator.7 Finally, it is rem arkable th at at least a third of the passages from ouv ajcetptav ucptaxa^ 6 9eo<; xai xr]v u'Xrjv iax&xov ye ouaav aitetptav rcapayet.10
Plato Bessarion cites in the second book o f the Calumniator are the same Bessarion also finds Proclus useful in explicating P la to ’s doctrine of
passages cited in P ro clu s’ Platonic Theology, an d in m any cases it is clear that soul. In this case, Bessarion is eager to show that Plato believed souls to
be ontologically d ependent upon G od, a position w hich Bessarion takes to
disias for his interpretation of Aristotle, of whom he says (Mohler 2:173, not in the Greek be alm ost equivalent to the C hristian doctrine of the special creation of in ­
text) “ Quae enim Alexander tradit non secus quam si ab Aristotele acciperemus iudicanda dividual souls. T o do this he cites some passages from Laws X , 895A-B
sunt, cum nemo omnium sit qui libros Aristotelis vel diligentius indagarit vel exquisitius
ac certius exposuerit. ’’ This reliance on Alexander is probably the result of Plethonian in­ w here Plato is arguing that self-m otion m ust be the prim ary form of m o­
fluence (see above, vol. 1, p. 219) but Bessarion explicitly contrasts George’s use of recent tion. T o explicate this passage, how ever, he tu rn s (silently) to the Platonic
oi ttafpa Aativou; £?T)YTi-cai (probably Paul of Venice, see above, vol. 1, p. 245, note 208) with Theology 1.14, where Proclus produces an elaborate classification of the
respectable ancient (Greek) commentators; see Mohler 2:198.
3 Ibid., pp. cxx, cxxiv. The same manuscript contains the Elements of Theology, similarly
kinds of m otion into (a) xivoopeva povov (bodies), (b) xtvoupeva xai xtvouvxa
annotated. Bessarion also owned a second manuscript of the Platonic Theology, Marc. gr. (qualities, form s-in-m atter, living beings), (c) auxoxivr)xa (souls), and (d)
193. On his study of the Munich manuscript, see further H. D. Saffrey, “ Notes axivTjxa (the D ivine M in d ).11 T his classification Bessarion adopts whole
autographes du Cardinal Bessarion dans un manuscrit de Munich,” Byzantion 35 (1965):
536-563.
4 See H. D. Saffrey, “ Pietro Balbi et la premiere traduction latine de la Theologieplatoni- 8 The proportion of Platonic passages cited apud Proclum may in fact be even higher, as
cienne de Proclus, ” in Miscellanea codicologica F M asai dicata M C M L X X 1X , ed. P. Cockshaw, I have been able to check only Books I-IV of the Platonic Theology, for which there exists
M.-C. Garand, and P. Jodogne, 2 vols. (Ghent, 1979), 2: 425-437. the apparatus fontium of Saffrey-Westerink. The last two books of the work are still available
3 Monac. graec. 547, 1. 63r; a French translation of the note, with discussion, is given only in the edition of Portus of 1618. {Plagulis additum: The Fifth volume of the Saffrey-
in H. D. Sallrev, ' ‘Aristote, Proclus, Bessarion: A propos de l’Un transcendental,” in Atti Westerink edition appeared in October, 1987]
del X JI Congresso internazionale di filosofia ( Florence, 1960), 11: 153-158. 9 See Plat. Theol. III.7-10, ed. Saffrey-Westerink, p. 40f. and the “ Notes compiemen-
b See Calumniator II.6 =* Mohler 2:112, line 15. A fuller study of Bessarion’s annotations taires” , p. 120, note 6; for the doctrine in later Neoplatonism see Proclus: Elements of Theo­
in the Munich manuscript would very probably reveal other links between Bessarion’s logy, ed. Dodds, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1963), pp. 246-249. It is noteworthy that Bessarion
reading of Proclus and his compilation of the Calumniator. prefers Proclus’ interpretation here to Plotinus’ (Enn. II.4.15).
The Munich excerpts from Cyril are copied in Saffrey, “ Notes autographes” , p. 10 Calumniator 11.6 = Mohler 2: 120.
544-546; excerpts nos. 4, 5, and 12 correspond respectively to Calumniator III. 13 = Mohler 11 Ed. Saffrey-Westerink, 1:61-63. The parallel passage in thft Elements of Theology, Prop.
2:280, lines 1-14; ibid. II.5 = Mohler 2:100, lines 2-5; ibid. III.4 = Mohler 2:228, lines 14, ed. Dodds, p. 16, is somewhat simpler and cannot be Bessarion’s source here; see
38-43 and 230, lines 1-5. Dodds’ commentary, p. 201.
 444 PART I

cloth in his own explication of the p a ssa g e .1-’ H ence a divisio Proclus had
used to show the logical necessity of an A ristotelian ’‘unm oved m o v er” is
used bv Bessarion to show the logical necessity of self-moved beings d e­ A P P E N D I X 14
pending on som ething unm oved.
Tw o other shorter exam ples: (A) B essarion— again trving to show the T H E “ A N C IE N T T H E O L O G Y ” O F A R IS T O T L E A C C O R D IN G
dependence of soul on G od in Platonic th o u g h t— interprets P lato ’s phrase T O G E O R G E O F T R E B IZ O N D
in Politicus '270A, e^taxeuaaxr] aGavaata, as "a d v en titio u s im m o rtality ” , a
dependent im m ortality com ing ah extra; this is alm ost certainlv done fol­ It has som etim es been asserted in the secondary literature that the Plato-
lowing Platonic Theology 1 .2 5 .1' (B) A n o th er distinguishing m ark of P ro ­ A ristotle controversy fundam entally concerned the place of philosophy in
clus’ A thenian school of N eoplatonism was its triad of “ theurgical theology, and that G eorge o fT re b iz o n d ’s Comparatio represents a traditio­
virtu es” of TTtaTti;, aAr]0£ia. and spax; derived from the Chaldaean Oracles', nalist counterblast to the fashionable syncretism of the h u m an ists.1 T he
rita— " F a ith ” — unlike Plato and earlier N eoplatonists— Proclus placed aim of this appendix is to show that this in terp retatio n of G eorge is
above rational c o g n itio n .u N aturally, Proclus w anted to have Platonic m istaken. It is true that G eorge rejected the view that Platonism was a
authority for this position, so he adduced a passage from Laws I (630C) prisca theologia which had prep ared the world for C h ristianity. But this was
which, with a bit of herm eneutical violence, could be m ade to yield the only because he him self wished to assign to A ristotelianism the same role
desired m e a n in g .15 Bessarion found this doctrine a very strong proof of Bessarion and Ficino assigned to Platonism .
P lato ’s superiority to A ristotle; for while the latter relied entirely on G eo rg e's view is a twisted version of E usebius’ argum ent in the Praepara-
reason, Plato placed faith first am ong the virtues, and in this way was able tio Evangehca, of w hich (it will be rem em bered) G eorge had m ade a Latin
to surpass A ristotle in his know ledge of divine things. T o prove this he cites version. E usebius had argued that the R om an E m pire, by u n itin g together
the same passage of the Laws as was q uoted bv P roclus."’ all peoples in the oikumene, had m ade possible the conversion of the world
Students of ancient N eoplatonism have som etim es observed that the to C h ristianity; at the sam e tim e, the philosophy of Plato had prepared the
A thenian school of N eoplatonism was in m any respects closer to C h ris­ best pagan m inds to receive the gospel.2 In G eo rg e’s view, it was Alex­
tianity than the N eoplatonism of the third century had b e e n .17 T h ere was an d er the G reat who had united the oikumene u n d er one language (another
also, for the fifteenth century, the striking nexus betw een Proclus and the exam ple of G e o rg e’s G reek patriotism , one m ust suppose); and it was
pseudo-D ionysius— a nexus of which Bessarion was well a w a re .18 Finally, A ristotle w hom D ivine Providence had chosen to prepare the pagan m ind
Proclus was also, surely, an attractiv e piua-cocYcoyrii; TiXa-covix^ £7:on:x£ta<; for C h ristian tr u th .3*
lor his belie! that P la to ’s works concealed a sublim e and system atic A ristotle, in fact, had had a kind of revelation of philosophical truth
theology. For all of these reasons it was Proclus who becam e the chief guide sim ilar to the revelation to M oses of religious truths. G eo rg e’s view of
of fifteenth-century Platonists to the works of Plato. A risto tle’s en lightenm ent is thus far m ore radical than that of T hom as
A quinas, w hom G eorge greatly adm ired. It had been T h o m a s’ purpose to
Calumniator II.8 = .Mohler 2: 140.
13 Cp. Calumniator 11.8 = Mohler 2: 152. line 40. and Saffrev-YVesterink. p. 116, line 10.
and note 2. where Sal'!rev gives Proclus, In Tim. III. p. 220 as a parallel passage. 1 Most recently C. H. Lohr in C H R P. pp. 561-562, following (presumably) Garin
’En’.axeuaaxT) aGavaata in Plato is nowadays taken to mean a “ restored immortality” . (1969), pp. 287-292.
" See YYallis, pp. 154-155. This move was made necessarv because of the radical 2 On Eusebius’ interpretation of history and the history of philosophy, see T. D. Barnes,
transcendence of the One in later Neoplatonism: Proclus distinguishes (Plat. Theol. I. 25) Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), chapters 8 and 10: for George's
between the “ lower” tuaxi? ol Rep. VI. 51 ID. and the higher “ theurgic” kind. No one to “ perversion” of Eusebius, see vol. 1, p. 192 and note 61.
my knowledge has yet investigated the possible intluence of this “ dependent” form of 3 Comparatio, III.9: “ Id quamvis copiose possumus exemplis comprobare, Alexander
suprarationalitv upon Cusanus’ concept of “ learned ignorance” . tamen et Aristoteles nobis sufficiunt, quos ego arbitror ad praeparanda hominum corda
1:' Platonic 'Theology 1.25, ed. Saffrev-YVesterink, p. 112. ut scripturis intellectis facilius adventum Creatoris amplecterentur divinitus nobis datos
Calumniator U.5 = Mohler 2: 104: Ilkdxcav Si xav xouxto xt) ixy.hr]a(a pakkov fuisse. Duobus maxime omnibus gentibus ut salvatorem preparatae susciperent opus erat,
ApiaxoxsAou? auvaoei. pakkov oe attkd)? pev ouxo? auvaSei, ix z ivw Se ouoe si? vouv oka>? aveprp primum, ut Iudaicas, idest divinas scripturas legere possent, alterum, ut per intelligentiam
xpoxtatrjv xs yap xajv dpsxcov xr,v xiaxiv xiGsxat Ilkdxcvv xai xa'Jxr, xokka xcov SrcspoucLv sukoyo? naturae creaturarum ad [ac ed. ] supernaturalia gradum lacerent. Hoc ultimum
xpeapsosi, x x a . (the Latin removes the negative comparison with Aristotle). Aristotelicae faciunt doctrinae, quod iam ita patet ut nemo sit qui negare audeat. Primum
1' See Wallis, chapter 5. Alexander, vel potius utrumque Deus per utrosque confccit. Non enim poterat scriptura
See C a l u m n ia t o r 1.7 ■= Mohler 2:74. (humanitus loquor) in omnes effundi gentes in singularum linguas traclucta.”
 446 PART I A PPE N D IC ES 447

show that A ristotelian science did not co n trad ict the tru th s of C h ristian ity , from heresy. But w hat is still m ore striking is that G eorge, in o rd er to show
as both his A verroist and A u g u stin ian rivals, for different reasons, had how A ristotle could have know n such sublim e theological tru th s, is obliged
tried to m a in ta in .4 But T h o m as had generally speaking confined him self to divinize h u m an rational pow ers. T o do this he is driven unconsciously
to arguing th at the tru th s of the C h ristia n faith could be deduced from to Platonize A ristotle’s psychology. G eorge thus criticises T h o m as for his
A ristotelian (th a t is, scientific) principles, an d h ad not attem p ted to prove hylom orphic in terp retatio n of soul, arg uing that som ething im m ortal
in each case th at A ristotle had him self held such positions; indeed, in a few could not depend on a m aterial p o ten cy .7 A ristotle, G eorge m aintains,
instances he ad m itted freely th at A ristotle h ad not correctly reasoned from held that both the agent and the potential intellect were separable and im ­
his own principles. T ho m as is thus able to be relatively critical about w hat m ortal; that the form er was a “ vis q uaedam et virtus ... q u a intelligit’’,
Aristotle him self m ay have believed. In G eorge, how ever, the hum anist while the latter was a substance “ veluti m ateria ... quod intelligit’ ’ which
and the p ro p h et come to gether in an overw helm ing desire to have also individuated the soul (II.x ). T o represent the soul as being in ­
unim peachable m odels for b ehavior an d sources for doctrine. H ence dividuated by “ spiritual m a tte r’’ and thus independent of any m aterial
G eorge represents A ristotle as h aving believed in personal im m ortality potencies was a fundam entally Platonic move with a long history in
(Comparatio 1.7; I I . 5), creatio ex nihilo ( I I .5), divine providence (11.14) and N eoplatonic exegesis. G eo rg e’s probable source was A lexander of
even as having had some obscure intu itio n s (subintelligere) of the Blessed A phrodisias (De an. 81.24-25 ff.), but the sam e doctrine had been adopted
T rin ity .5 G eorge even tries to re in te rp re t A ristotle so as to free him from by P lotinus (Enn. 5.1.3), by m ost of the later N eoplatonic com m entators
the charges of determ inism an d n atu ralism which had dogged w ould-be on A ristotle’s De anima, by A vicenna, and by m any m edieval scholastics
C hristianizers o f his philosophy (in clu d in g St. T hom as) since the C o n ­ anxious to reconcile A u g u stin e’s doctrine of illum ination with A ristotle.8
dem nation of 1277. A ristotle, says G eorge, did not reduce G od to the In sum , G eorge creates w ith his in terp retatio n of A ristotle a syncretistic
status of a first m o v e r,6 and had seen creatio n as freely d ep en d en t on the C hristian A ristotelianism strikingly sim ilar to the C h ristian Platonism of
will of G od, not determ in ed by his n a tu re (II. 7). So great was A ristotle’s Ficino and his circle. Like Ficino, G eorge depicts a pagan philosopher as
knowledge of theological tru th s that G eorge does not hesitate to declare having a d u m b rated , in obscure language filled with hidden wisdom , an
that he had achieved eternal salvation, “ in cathalogo san ctorum ego ip- esoteric theology m isunderstood by the vulgar which was identical in most
sum co n n u m erare non d u b ito ’’ (11.18). im p o rtan t respects w ith C h ristia n ity .9 Like Ficino, he places a high p rio ri­
G eorge knew that such claim s w ere b o u n d to be greeted w ith skepticism , ty on elaborating a doctrine of the soul w hich w ould be w orthy of the digni­
for the works o f A ristotle were far b e tte r know n in the W est th an those of ty of m an as well as p ro o f against the perversions of A verroes, w hom he
Plato, and by the fifteenth cen tu ry th eir divergences from C h ristian ity
were patent to m ost professional scholastics. It was perhaps partly for this
reason that G eorge felt obliged to stren g th en his claim s by appealing to his 7 Ibid., 11.12: “ Illud m irum est, quid Thom as, vir turn sanctitate turn scientia praeci-
puus, huic rationi assensisse legitur, praesertim cum librum quendam reliquerit De esse et
prophetic vision of an A ristotle sent by D ivine Providence to save the W est essentia inscriptum , ubi aperte uult ex esse atque essentia omnes intelligentias praetor
primam constare, et horum alterum esse potentiam , alterum actum , quae sententia non
differt ab aristotelica praeterquam in vocabulis— M irum ergo est si actum et potentiam
4 For Thom as’ position on the relationship between faith and reason, see E. Gilson, The essentialiter esse in intelligentiis vidit, idque in anim is sim iliter esse necesse esse, cur indi-
Christian Philosophy o f Thomas Aquinas , tr. L. K. Shook (New York, 1956), pp. 7-25; J . A. viduationem anim orum per potentiam , sicut rerum corporalium , per m ateriam non ser­
W eisheipl, Friar Thomas d'Aquino: H is Life, Thought and Work (New York, 1974), pp. 176 f., van t, sed ad inclinationem eorum ad corpora in communiorem redacta m ateriam quasi
21 If. For T hom as’ place in thirteenth century debates on the role of Aristotelianism , see coactus refugit.” Elsewhere, when it suits his turn, Trebizond praises Aristotle s hylomor­
F. van Steenbererhen, Aristotle in the West: The Origins of Latin Aristotelianism, 2nd edn. (Lou­ phic psychology for the political “ realism ” it im plies, as opposed to Plato s impossibly
vain, 1970). idealistic notion of hum an soul; see vol. 1, p. 174f.
5 George had him self translated nine works of Aristotle in the 1440s and 50s, and was 3 For A lexander of A phrodisias’ platonizing version of A ristotle’s psychology, see P.
able to turn that knowledge to account in fashioning his interpretation; he was also fam iliar M erlan in The Cambridge History o f Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (Cam bridge,
with rtnost of the Greek commentators on Aristotle (see M onfasani, Trapezuntiana, ad in­ 1967), p. 119.
dices), w ho m ay have been responsible for his occasional Platonizings of Aristotle (see the 9 Comparatio, II.8: “ Obscure nam que res omnes m agnas ipse tradidit, vel quia sic eden-
next paragraph). dae hae sunt ne vilescant vulgo propositae, vel quia periculosum erat temporibus suis
n Comparatio II.2. George distinguishes between the motor primus and the motor pnm i dilucide ilia dicere quae remota erant ab opinione com muni, uel quia legentibus multo
mobihs. 7 hat Thom as and the Dominican school of theologians reduce God to the status utilius est sic res grandes conscribere, turn ad exercitationem legentium , ut plura in-
ol a first cause, thus underm ining his potentia absoluta, is one of the standard objections ol vestigando inveniant, turn ad fidem: nam qui obscure dicta intellexerit enodaveritque, is
theologians ol the via moderna in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. quasi sua sint, quae exponendo dixit, ita ipsa et diligit et am plectitur. ”
448 PART I

sees as a great threat to C h ristia n theology (11.14). Like Ficino, he a t­

tributes to a pagan philosopher a role in the salvation of m ankind. A nd
like Ficino, he believes this “ ancien t theology” to be the product, not of A P P F N I M X 15

the natural light of reason, b u t of a special divine illum ination given for
the benefit of all m ankind. P O L IZ IA N O ’S FR A G M E N T A R Y T R A N S L A T IO N OF TH E
C H A R M ID E S

It is a remarkable circumstance that nowhere in the vast literature

devoted to Angelo Poliziano has more than a passing notice been given
to his fragmentary translation of Plato's C h a r m i d e s . ' It is sometimes
assumed to be an early work, antedating even his translation of the I l i a d .
but there is no real evidence that this is the case.- The text was first pub­
lished in the Aldine O pera o m n i a of 1498. an edition' put together after
Poliziano’s death by Alessandro Sarti and other triends.5 Sard is reported
by Aldus to have searched carefully for Poliziano \s literary relics.4 and
seems to have lighted upon the first folio of a translation ot the C h a r m i d e s ,
together with a preface to Lorenzo d e’ M edici, neither of which had been
copied or printed in Poliziano s lifetim e.1*4The translation is mentioned
in no known work of Poliziano or of his contemporaries.
The preface gives us some initial indications as to the date. Poliziano
speaks of Lorenzo as “ ruling the state with wisdom ", as having recalled
Philosophy once again in p a t r i a m , and calls him the o p t i m u s a c a d e m i a e p a tro -
n u s : the preface must, then, date from the period after Lorenzo refounded

1 For the bibliography, see A. Maier. Ans>e Politien: La formation d 'u n p o r k h u m anisk.
Travaux d ’Humanisme et Renaissance. 81 (Geneva. 1966); the article of F. Bit^i in D B l
2; 691-702; V. Branca, Poliziano e I ’urnanesirno della parola (Turin, 1988); and Verde.
4.1:120-128. 242-244. 280-282. 847-851. 581-384: none ol whom mentions the transla­
tion. The most extensive treatment ot the text is the two pages devoted to it in F. O.
Mencke. Eli storm vitae et in htteras m entorum Angeli P ohtiani nrtu Arnbrouini (Leipzig, 1786),
pp. 166-167, though there are passing mentions of it in later works.
- No scholar to my knowledge has advanced any evidence as to the date, but A.
Waschbuesch. Pohzian: Ein Beitrai> zur Philosophic des Hurnanisrnus (Munich. 1972). p. 65,
seems to assume a date before Politian s translation of Homer, begun in 1470.
* L. Dorez, "La mort de Pic de la Mirandole et Fedition aldine des oeuvres d’Ange
Politien," GSLI, 32 (1898): 360-364: J. Hill Cotton. "Alessandro Sarti e il Poliziano."
La Bibliofilm 64 (1962): 225-246.
4 See Aldus preface, edited in A ldo M an u zio editore. dediehe, prefazioni, note ai testi. tn-
troduzione di C. Dionisotti, testo latino con traduzioni e note a cura di G. Orlandi.
Documenti sulle arti del libro, 11 (Milano, 1975), 1:25-26: "Quod siquid doetas auris
tuas offendit tamquam parum elaboratum et cultum. scito non esse haec edita ab ipso,
sed ab amicis, et praecipue ab Alexandro Sartio Bononiensi. literis omnibus pergrato
viro, qui amicissimi viri quaecumquc habere potuit opera, multum ae diu et accurate
quaesita, imprimenda curauit."
’ See Text 64. The explicit is "incolumis porro euadnt neces.se est. Cantationern uero,”
which is followed bv the editor's note "Reliquum summa diligentia quacsitum, habere
nequiuimus". This ending suggests that the work is a 1ragment ot a dralt. rather than
an incomplete draft.
 PART I A PPE N D IC ES 451

the U niversity of Pisa, that is, after 1473.6 T h e terminus ante quern is m ore and other little gifts I have been making ready for you—all have fallen into
conjectural. T h e only oth er tim e in his w orks Poliziano alludes to P la to ’s his hands, dragged into the open like unwed virgins still unkempt and un­
washed, weeping at their seizure by hostile and shameless hands, imploring
Charmides is in a letter of 1486/88 to A lessandro C o rte si,7 though of
you, who alone can, to save them .9
coufse he m ight easily have read the dialogue in G reek o r in F icino’s v er­
sion before tran slatin g it him self. But in fact it is highly unlikely that he It is, I believe, very likely th at am ong the literary m aidens thus fallen
would have retranslated the dialogue after the appearance of the Latin into im p u d en t hands was P o lizian o ’s version of the Charmides. T here is the
ren d erin g of 1484 m ade by his lifelong friend Ficino. P oliziano’s preface, m ention of P lato, of tran slatio n s, and of projected dedications to Lorenzo.
in fact, im plies that the dialogue had not yet been tra n sla te d .8 T h ere is also the fact that the translation we possess is rough in certain
T h ere is, how ever, a letter o f 1479 w hich suggests both the date of the places, and so fits P o liziano’s allusion to th eir unpolished c o n d itio n .10*Poli­
translation and a reason why it was never published. A fter the Pazzi con­ ziano does not quote very frequently from P lato — hardly m ore than a
spiracy of A pril, 1478, and the political troubles of the sum m er, Lorenzo dozen tim es in his entire oeuvre— ,u
so it is perhaps significant that he
w ithdrew w ith his wife, children, an d certain friends to the villa o f C afag- quotes from P la to ’s Phaedo in the preface to the Charmides translation as well
giolo. T h ere Poliziano, in the q uality of tu to r to L o ren zo ’s boys, spent as in the letter of 22 M ay. Finally, if Poliziano lost sight of the translation
an u nhappy w inter, m ade b itter by the hostility of L o ren zo ’s wife, of the Charmides after his a b ru p t exit from C afaggiolo, it would explain why
Clairice. C larice was an aristocratic but ig n o ran t w om an w ith little hold it was never polished for publication, but only discovered in fragm entary
on her husband; Poliziano, of m iddling origins, was am ong the most form by A lessandro S arti n ear the end of the century.
learned m en of the age and was high in L o ren zo ’s favor, having helped T h e re are also m ore general considerations w hich point to a date in the
to save his life in the Pazzi conspiracy; an explosion was nearly in­ later 1470s. A fter P o lizian o ’s su m m er at Fiesole, d u rin g which he
evitable. O n 6 M ay 1479 L orenzo received a letter from Poliziano at translated A lexander of A phrodisias and E pictetus, he had a falling-out
C afeggi inform ing him that C larice had throw n him out of Cafaggiolo. w ith L orenzo, w hereupon he w ent into vo lu n tary exile for half a year.
L orenzo, em barrassed, a rra n g e d for him to rem ain in literary retirem ent A fter his re tu rn , he threw him self into teaching poetry and rhetoric at the
at fiesole. O n 22 J u n e Poliziano sent him a letter of thanks for this favor, Studio, began his study of A ristotle, cam e m ore strongly u n d er the influ­
elegantly describing his state of m in d w ith an apt allusion to P lato ’s ence of Pico, and fixed at last upon his tru e metier of philology. T he later
Phaedo. T h e n , changing the conceit, he m ade a request:
I have been competing with your contadino here: he has been cultivating the 9 O p e r a , ed. M aier, pp. 550-551 (which gives a better text than the version reproduced
fields, I the mind; he the gardens and vineyards, I my few little books; both on p. 480): “ C ertam us enim cum villico hoc tuo, ille enim agrum , nos ingenium , ille
of us have been working to produce twofold fruit for you at Fiesole. He has hortum aut vineam , nos libellos pauculos excolimus dam usque operam uterque ut duplex
the advantage of me, however, in one matter, for he has to hand all his tibi proventus Fesulis redeat. Uno tamen ille me vincit: omnem quippe suam supellec-
tools—the mattock, hoe, rake, and other rustic implements— , while my tilem , m arram puta, sarculum et rastellum ceteraque rusticorum instrum enta ad manum
tools— Homer, Plato, Demosthenes, and other implements of the Muses— habet; mea vero omnis supellex, H om erus, Plato et Demostenes ceteraque M usarum in­
strum enta ad eius manum sunt, qui et meum iam Petrum instituendum accepit. In eius
are in the hands of him who has taken over the education of my Piero. As m anu mei omnes tuique sunt libelli, id quod ego certis nuntiis exploratum habeo, illi,
I have ascertained by certain messengers, all my books, and yours, books inquam , m ea m anu mea opera tam diu exculti, com mentationes quoque atque interpreta-
long cultivated by my hand and labors, my commentaries and translations tiones nostrae quaeque tibi alia m unuscula concinnabam us, ceu innuptae virgines in-
comptae adhuc et illotae, contra pudoris legem veluti hostili m anu lachrimantes in
6 This is unlikely to refer to the so-called “ Florentine A cadem y” ; see m y forthcoming propatulum teque unum im plorantes protrahuntur.” T hree days later, and again on 18
artjcle “ Cosimo d e’M edici and the ‘ Platonic A cadem y’ ” . J u ly , Poliziano repeated his request to Lorenzo’s mother, Lucrezia Tornabuoni { O p e r a ,
7 Edited by L. D ’Amore, E p is to l e in e d ite d i A n g e lo P o l iz ia n o (N aples, 1909), p. 32, and ed. M aier, 2: 71-74). It is perhaps significant that we also hear very little after this date
reprinted in I. M aier, ed., A n g e la s P o l iti a n u s : O p e r a o m n ia (T urin , 1971), 3: 504: “ Ac of Poliziano’s studies of Demosthenes.
Sodrates quidem adulescenti cuidam ‘loquere’ , inquit, ‘ut te videam ’ . ” The editor does 10 It is hard to im agine, for instance, that Poliziano would in a published work allow
not identify the allusion, but it is to C h r m . 154E. The date I infer from the position of il lu s tr iu m to stand as a translation in this context of twv yvcoptpcov (153C 1), or would have
the letter in the Capponianus codex. rem ained satisfied with “ Atque et ipsum quoque aspicio iam proxime ad nos ac-
® See Text 64, line 78f. Poliziano must have known about Ficino’s translations by the cedentem ” for ipatvetai 81 (jloi xai auxo<; eyyui; "nSri ttou etvat itpoauiiv (154A6), making
later 1470s, for in a letter of 1475/76, responding to his query, Ficino tells Poliziano that nonsense of the later Kott a pa ... 6 Xappt8ti<; eiaepxttat. M a t a s for <pauXo<; and n ih il p e n s i
he has translated, among other works, “ Platonis libros omnes” { O p . 619). But there is for ouSev <rca9pTfc6v also seem fairly rough approxim ations.
no proof that Ficino planned at that time to publish his translation or dedicate it to Loren­ “ I have found quotations from or allusions to only the R e p . , P h d . , C h r m . , P r o ta g . , A le .
zo; see vol. 1, pp. 301, 305. I , P h d r . , and Proclus’ com m entary on the T i m . .
452 PART I A PPENDICES 453

1470s were thus the high-w ater m ark of F icin o ’s— and P la to ’s— influence ing pirated editions of hom osexualist literature is equally com m endable
upbn Poliziano; the Stanze per la Giostra are surely the m ost N eoplatonic for the C hristian publisher. T h e absence of this “ locus venustissim us”
of all Poliziano’s com positions.12 In the preface to the Charmides, too, was also noticed by the anonym ous editor of the 1557 L yonnaise prin tin g
Poljziano associates him self w ith the Platonici and develops a n u m b er of of F icino’s translation; A ntoine V incente, the publisher of the edition,
Ficjnian th e m e s.13 T h ere is the need to jo in wisdom to power, the in ­ p rin ted the m issing passage in his preface, boasting that he was the First
sistence that hig h er wisdom cannot be achieved w ithout m oral purity, the to exhibit it to the learned in L atin tra n sla tio n .18
praise of Plato as “ philosophorum o m n iu m sine controversia parens ac
d e u s” , and an allusion to prisci theologi (who in P oliziano’s version in ­
clude H om er, O rp h eu s, H esiod, P yth ag o ras, and Plato). Poliziano also “ renowned for his marvelous continence.” In his annotations to Poliziano’s preface,
calls upon L orenzo to save philosophy from its scholastic “ ap es” who Badius also attacks the notion of an ancient theology, arguing that the ancient poets were
profane the A cadem ic shrine by try in g to teach wisdom w ithout virtue, mad and immoral.
18 See Text 84.
like those who p o u r clean w ater dow n a polluted well (a P ythagorean im ­
age). T hese im passioned prayers echo F icin o ’s concerns, who in the same
period of the late 1470s was a ttem p tin g to use his influence with Lorenzo
to check the im piety of A verroism at the Pisan studio.1*
T h e translation itself, how ever, presents one interesting contrast with
F icino’s ren d erin g of the sam e text. Ficino, though convinced that
S ocrates’ passion for C h arm id es was a beautiful allegory, nevertheless
chose, unusually, to bow dlerize the m ost unedifving passage of the open­
ing scene so as not to inflam e his low -m inded c o n tem p o raries.15 Poli­
ziano translates the entire passage w ithout a blush. Since we are probably
dealing with a d raft, it w ould be w rong to draw too m any conclusions
from this contrast. It is in teresting, nonetheless, that the difference was
observed by Badius when he p re p a re d the 1519 edition of the Politiani
opera omnia, pirated in 1512 from the A ld in e .16 In his annotations to Poli­
zia n o ’s translation, the p rin te r opined: “ T his passage [on S ocrates’
hom osexual feelings] M arsilio [unlike Poliziano] has rem oved, as u nw or­
thy either of the person of Socrates or of the perusal of C hristians. I com ­
m end M arsilio ’s practice in this m atter. H e has preferred to be a useful
rath er than a com plete tra n s la to r.” 17 Badius does not say w hether p rin t­

12 See Maier, Ange Politien , p. 3131'., and V. Branca, “ Fra Ficino e Poliziano,” in
Ritomo, pp. 459-475. For Poliziano's philosophical development and ideas, see
Kiesfckowski, pp. 62-63, and the review of’P. O. Kristeller in Annali della R. Scuola Normale
di Pisa , Classe di lettere, storia eJ'ilosoJia, ser. 2, 7 (1938): 341-349; G. Saitta, Marsilio Ficino
e la Jilosojia dell’ Umanesimo (Florence, 1943), pp. 224-231; E. Bigi, La cultura del Poliziano
e altri studi umanistici (Pisa, 1967), pp. 68-79; A. Waschbuesch (cit. note 2); and especially
Garin (1979), pp. 335-358.
i;! See Text 64.
14 Verde, 4.1:274-280. 285-287, 310-314, 353-354.
15 See vol. 1, p. 313.
Badius had printed Ficino’s Plato in 1518 (Cat. B, no. 32).
17 See Text 65, lines 83-85. Earlier in the same commentarv Badius declared that the
praise ol adolescent beauty put into Socrates' mouth in the Charmides proceeds rather
Irorn the “ stomach” of Plato, who wrote amatorv verses, than from that of Socrates,

i! mmm&m-
 A PPEN D IC ES 455

strengthen C h ristian doctrine m ore zealously ( “ u t acriori posthac in-

genio studioque d o ctrin am C hristi confirm em ” ).*
A P P E N D I X 16 C o rsi’s story th at Ficino u n derw ent a radical conversion from
paganism to C h ristian ity som etim e in the early 1470s can n o t therefore
F IC IN O ’S “ S P IR IT U A L C R IS IS ” be substantiated. It is, how ever, quite possible that C orsi, in com piling
his life of Ficino, was m isdating and em broidering a w ell-know n anec­
T h e story of F icino’s youthful “ conversion experience(s)” has always dote reg ard in g an incident in F icino’s life which had taken place some
been a favorite one with his b iographers from C orsi to M arcel, b u t equal­ ten to fifteen years earlier. O n e account of this incident is preserved by
ly it has always been a difficult one to in terp ret, as the evidence is scanty, Z anobi A cciaiuoli, w hom C orsi m ay have know n, and who certainly
conflicting, and often unreliable. T h e sta rtin g point for m odern discus­ knew F icino.5 A ccording to A cciaiuoli, Ficino had “ very o ften ” told him
sions of the evidence is K risteller’s careful study of 1938, in which the of the providential in tervention of St. A n toninus (d. 1459) d u rin g a
exaggerations of D ella T o rre are reduced to m ore reasonable dim ensions period of F icino’s life w hen he had fallen into a pernicious heresy owing
through a critical analysis of the two principal sources: G iovanni C o rsi’s to his unreg u lated study of Plato. St. A ntoninus recognized that his
bidgraphy and Z anobi A cciaiuoli’s preface to his edition o f T h eodoret of “ young cleric” had been captivated by Platonic eloquence, and required
Cy*r’s Curalio morborum graecorum.1 him to read, as an antidote, the Summa contra Gentiles of T h o m as A quinas
A ccording to C orsi, Ficino (presum ably in the late 1460s) was plan ­ before re tu rn in g to his Platonic read in g .6
ning (cogitauit) to w rite a Platonic T heology “ alm ost on the m odel of T h is story, unlike C o rsi’s, m ust surely be taken seriously. It was told
pagan religion” , b u t was p revented from doing so by religious scruples in a preface to Leo X , who had know n Ficino well and who would thus
and m elancholic depression; ultim ately, he recognized this depression as have been a good ju d g e of its plausibility. It is true th at Ficino did not
a providential w arning that he h ad d ep arted too far from C hristian truth, take m in o r orders until the 1470s, b ut the term “ clericus” was extrem ely
and “ im m u tata m e n te ” he w rote a Platonic Theology w hich accorded w ith vague and could apply to anyone attending university; as A ntoninus was
th£ C h ristian religion (1474). K risteller does not dism iss the anecdote en ­ the C hancellor of the U niversity, A cciaiuoli’s description of Ficino as
tirely, but argues plausibly th at one m ay not conclude from it, as do clericus suus is not wholly in a c c u ra te.7 T h ere were also plenty of oppor-
D ella T o rre and others, th at Ficino was at any tim e a “ p a g a n ” . N or,
besides, is there evidence that he ever com posed a paganizing Platonic
* O p . , p. 644; Corsi’s account conflates this letter with several others of later date, as
Theology which was later revised so as to agree w ith C h ristian ity . A nd is pointed out in Kristeller (1956), p. 204.
as M arcel shows, the phrase “ ex pagano miles C h risti” m ust be taken 5 Corsi’s biography grew out of the famous discussions in the Rucellai gardens in the
first decade of the sixteenth century, and though there is no evidence that Acciaiuoli was
sirhply as a reference to F icin o ’s o rd in atio n to the priesth o o d .2 T o the
among the participants in these discussions or was acquainted with Corsi (see F. Gilbert,
argum ents of K risteller and M arcel one m ay add a fu rth er point: it is “Bernardo Rucellai and the Orti Oricellari,” in H i s t o r y : C h o ic e a n d C o m m itm e n t [Carp-
very unlikely th at Ficino, in the sam e years he was assailing Luigi Pulci bridge, Mass., 1977], pp. 215-246, at 231 f.), they did have a common acquaintance in
foi* im piety and unbelief, w ould have him self been suffering from the Francesco Cattani da Diacceto; see the preface to Diacceto’s commentary on Boethius
in Diacceto’s O p e r a o m n ia (Basel, 1563), pp. 324-328. For further bibliography see D B l
safne disease.3*At the bottom of C o rsi’s story is probably nothing m ore 1: 93-94 (Acciaiuoli), 22: 510-511 (Cattani Diacceto), 29: 567-570 (Corsi).
thtan a letter of Ficino to Francesco M arescalchi ( “ V ota non sunt 6 M o s t r a , p. 172, which quotes the dedication copy = S u p p l . 2:204: “ Marsilius Ficinus

spjernenda” ) w here Ficino declares him self to have been healed from a ... saepius mihi dicere inter loquendum solebat factum providentia Florentini praesulis
Antonini, quo minus e Platonis lectione quam inde a pueris summopere adamavit in per-
severe case of fever and d ia rrh e a by a vow he m ade to the Blessed V irgin; niciosam heresim prolapsus fuerit. Bonus enim pastor cum adulescentem clericum suum
thb sickness itself Ficino took as a divine sign that he should thenceforth nimio plus captum Platonis eloquentia cemeret, non ante passus est in illius philosophi
lectione frequentem esse, quam eum Divi Thomae Aquinatis quattuor libris contra
gentes conscriptis quasi quodam antipharmaco premuniret.”
7 For the vague force of c le r ic u s (meaning any educated person, or person engaged in
1 “Per la biografia di Marsilio Ficino,’’ reprinted in Kristeller (1956), pp. 191-211, getting an education) see O. Weijers, T e r m in o lo g ie d e s u n iv e r s ite s a u X I l i e sie c le (Rome,
at 200-205. 1987), pp. 183-185. For Antoninus’ position as chancellor, see A. Gherardi, S ta tu ti d e lla
2 Marcel, pp. 354-355. U n io e r s itd e S tu d io F io r e n tin o (Florence, 1881), p. 456; for the quasi-clerical status of univer­
3 On this controversy see P. Orvieto, P u lc i m e d ie v a le . S tu d io s u lla p o e s ia v o lg a re f i o r m t i n a sity students, see ibid., 95-96, 98-99, 117. The date of Ficino’s entrance into formal
d e l Q u a ttro c e n to (Rome, 1978); Verde, vol. 4, passim, esp. pp. 125-136. orders is in Kristeller, R i t o m o , p. 173.
 456 PART I A PPE N D IC ES 457

tunitjes for contact betw een Ficino an d the A rchbishop. F icino’s G reek back the ancient worship of the gods and dem ons, now for so long rightly
teacher, Francesco da C astiglione, was A n to n in u s’ secretary, and his condem ned. For just as the Pythagoreans of old were careful not to reveal
m en to r A ntonio degli Agli, was a close friend. At the presum ed tim e of divine things to the vulgar, so I have always been careful not to make pro­
fane things com m on property. H ence, I did not even spare the little com ­
the s^ory (late 1450s), Ficino was still living w ith his father near the mentary I prepared (som ehow or other) on Lucretius when still a boy, but
hospital of S an ta M aria N uova, a place St. A n toninus visited often; in consigned it to the tlames, as Plato did with his tragedies and elegies.14
his diary, A ntoninus even m entions F ic in o ’s father on one occasion.8 M aturer years and more careful judgem ent, as Plato says, often condemn
M oreover, the story fits w ith w hat we know from o ther sources about An- what frivolous youth either rashly believed, or at least (to be fair) was too
to n in tis’ attitu d e to Plato an d p ag an letters. It is well know n that An- ignorant to condem n. For (as Plato also remarks) it is more dangerous to
im bibe noxious opinions than the worst p oison s.15
toniniis was hostile to w hat he took to be the exaggerated enthusiasm for
the hum anities characteristic o f the a g e ,9 an d there are pages in An- T h ere are signs that Ficino did indeed pass through a period, around the
to n in b s’ Summa which borrow directly from the anti-P latonic tra d itio n .10 end of 1457, w hen he was strongly attracted to L ucretius ( “ Lucretius ille
It is striking that A ntoninus specifically condem ns attem p ts at syncretism noster E picureorum philosophorum clarissim us” ) .16 T his is surely signifi­
betw een P latonism and C h ristia n ity , an d th at he was a disciple of cant. L u cretiu s’ De natura rerum has as its purpose the healing of minds
G iovanni D om inici (w hom he quotes extensively in his Summa)— infected w ith superstitions; it aim s to use n atu ral science to free m ankind
D om jnici, it will be recalled, was one o f S a lu ta ti’s opponents in the from dependence on priestcraft and religion; it argues lor m aterialism ,
debate over the usefulness of pag an literatu re. the m ortality of the soul, and the indifference of the gods towards
O h Ficino’s side there is also evidence of a response to A n to n in u s’ m ankind. If Ficino found such views attractive, he m ust have been d rift­
criticism . It is know n that he did in fact study closely A q u in as’ Summa ing quite far from strict o rth o d o x y .17 M oreover there is other evidence,
contra Gentiles, for he quotes (silently) extensive tracts from it in his besides that of Zanobi Acciaiuoli, that F icino’s view of Plato was m oving
Philebtis com m entary of 1469.11 F ic in o ’s lifelong concern to defend the in u northodox directions. In F icino’s youthful letter “ De divino furore”
value of studying pagan philosophy an d his special interest in the he quotes with approval the w ritings of the pantheistic heretic David of
spiritual needs of “ im pious y o u th s” suggests th at these problem s had a D in an t, who had been condem ned by the C ouncil of Sens in 1210 and
personal m ean in g for h im .12 T h e re is also evidence th at A ntonio degli whose heretical status was undoubtedly know n to Ficino. L ater, in his
Agli and B artolom eo Scala w ere w orried ab o u t the tren d of F icino’s
studies in the late 1450s.13 But the best evidence for a spiritual crisis and 14 See Diogenes Laertius III.5.
15 Op . , p. 933: “ Argonautica et hymnos Orphei et Homeri et Proculi, Theologiamque
renew al in F icin o ’s youth is a late letter to M a rtin u s U ran iu s, w here he Hesiodi, quae adolescens (nescio quomodo) ad uerbum mihi soli transtuli, quemad-
writes: modum tu nuper hospes apud me uidisti. edere numquam placuit, ne lorte lectores ad
priscum deorum daemonumque cultum iamdiu merito reprobatum reuocare uiderer.
I have always been reluctant to publish the literal translations I made in my Quantum enim Pythagoricis quondam curae fuit ne diuina in uulgus ederent, tanta mihi
youth, for my private use, of the Argonautica and Hymns of Orpheus, Homer semper cura fuit, non diuulgare prophana. adeo ut neque commentariolis in Lucretium
add Proclus as well as the Theology of Hesiod—the ones you saw when you meis, quae puer adhuc (nescio quomodo) commentabar deinde pepercerim; haec enim,
were recently my guest. I didn’t want readers to think I was trying to bring sicut et Plato tragoedias elegiasque suas, Vulcano dedi. Maturior enim aetas exquisitius-
que examen, ut inquit Plato, saepe damnat, quae leuitas iuuenilis uel temere credidit,
uel saltern (ut par erat) reprobare nesciuit. Periculos < i > us uero est, ut et Plato inquit,
8 For Francesco da Castiglione and Ficino, see the references in Field, Origins of the noxias opiniones imbibere quam uenenum pessimum diuulgare.”
Platonic Academy, chapter 6; for the other details, see Mostra, pp. 172-173, nos. 135, 136. 16 The evidence is discussed in Marcel, pp. 221-227.
9 See the passages from Antoninus’ works cited by Della Torre, pp. 252-265, to which 17 Kristeller ([1956], p. 203), who would minimize the entire episode, argues “ e se egli
may be added St. Antoninus, Summa Theologica (Verona, 1740; repr. Graz, 1959), Pars soppresse per scrupolo religioso i suoi commenti a Lucrezio, bisogna pure tener presente
II, tit. iii, cap. 7 = 2:485-499. che anche questi commenti non trattarono ne di paganesimo ne di teorie epicuree ma eb-
10 Pointed out by Della Torre, pp. 515-519; see also Marcel, pp. 204-208. bero un carattere piuttosto allegorico e moralizzante che si accorda perlettamente colla
11 See Allen (1975), pp. 23-24, 55. posizione platonica e cristiana del Ficino. I brani che ho potuto ritrovare di tali commenti
12 See vol. I, Part IV, section 1. non lasciano alcun dubbio su questo punto.” But in the passages referred to, there is no
13 See vol. I, p. 297 for Agli’s concern with Ficino’s spiritual health. In an unpublished attempt to reconcile Lucretius with Christianity, and if Ficino links the imitation of
text De nobilioTibus philosophorum sectis recently identified as the work of Bartolomeo Scala Christ with the imitation of Socrates in a contemporary letter, that does not prove his
(see Kristeller in D B I 15: 256), there is a long critique of Platonists and other “ fools who position was orthodox. In fact, Ficino’s coeval treatise De quattuor sectis philosophorum
philosophize with the pagans” which is almost certainly directed at Ficino. See Laur. (Suppl. 2: 9-10) shows us that Ficino understood very well what the Epicurean position
LXXVI 55, ff. 44r-46r. The text is dated “ Ex Florentia 1458” . implied; and Lucretius is quoted several times in illustration of that position.
458 PART I A PPEN D IC ES 459

PlalQnic Theology o f 1474, he poin ted ly rejected the doctrine of the defer to m a tu re r years the exposure of youth to pagan poetry and philoso­
“ ridiculous b a rb a ria n ’’ D av id , alig n in g him self w ith the orthodox posi­ phy. Ficino, once again, took an indep en d en t line, p ro m o tin g a docta
tion of A lbert the G r e a t.18 In view of all these considerations, it m ay very religio and a pia philosophia w hich w ould com bine the w isdom and beauty
well be the case that A n to n in u s, Scala, an d Agli did notice some alarm ing of ancient religion w ith the tru th of C h ristianity.
heretical tendencies in the y o u n g Ficino an d did th eir best to p u t his feet
back on the p ath of orthodoxy.
Itj is of course difficult to know q u ite w hat to m ake of these youthful
w anderings. It m ust be rem em b ered th at in the period before the C ouncil
of T re n t it was often h ard for persons w ith o u t theological train in g to find
out precisely w hat o rthodoxy was; even theologians w ere accustom ed to
moife u n restrain ed form s o f m etaphysical speculation th an w ould later be
perm itted. A cciaiuoli, who is p ro b ab ly e x a g g e ratin g ,19 speaks of a “ p e r­
nicious h eresy ’’ (not p aganism o r “ a th e ism ’’); Ficino him self evidently
looked back to that period of his y o u th as to a period of frivolous im ­
m atu rity . In any case we can see w hat the outcom e was. Ficino did not
sim ply reject A n to n in u s’ advice an d follow Pletho into a com plete syn­
cretism w ith ancient religion, a b a n d o n in g au th o rity and orthodoxy. But
he did not becom e a philistine like A n to n in u s, nor yet a conservative like
T rav ersari o r E rm olao B arb aro o r Z an o b i Acciaiuoli, who w anted to

18 On all this see, Gentile (1983), p. 65f. For further evidence of a shift in Ficino’s
viewis to a more orthodox position, see App. 17.
19 As the antiplatonism of Acciaiuoli has sometimes been exaggerated, I transcribe
here a copy of a letter to Cardinal Farnese Acciaiuoli wrote four years after the preface
to Theodoret, which puts Acciaiuoli’s attitude to Plato in a different light (BAV, Vat.
lat. fjl33, pt. 2, ff. 583r-584v - Iter 2: 331E): “ Reverendissimo domino meo Domino
Cardinali Pharnesio. Reverendissime in Christo pater ac domine: Est eorum consuetudo
qui admirandae rei spectaculo interfuerunt, ut quaecumque uiderint, amicis narrare
praegestiant. Id et mihi nuper accidit, pater amplissime, lectis Marci Musuri graecis uer-
sibuS qui ante Platonis libros impressi sunt [i.e., his liminal verses to the Aldine editio
pnndfps of Plato published in 1513]. Ita enim me illi attonitum reddiderunt inventione
ordifte copia facilitate doctrina elegantia pietate, ut continere me non potuerim, quin eos
saltern servata numeri paritate latinos facerem. Ita, quantum in me esset, participes
eorum facturus illos qui graece nesciunt. Quamquam enim ad amussim tralati illi non
sint, tantamque rem praestare, optandae felicitatis potius fuerat quam nostrae facultatis.
Spero tamen ex hac qualicunque tralatione, ceu < e x > quodam umbratilis picturae
rudiinento, facile coniecturos [converturos M S] esse, qui nostros legent, quae sit ar-
chetypae figurae maiestas et elegantia. Tibi autem nunc eos legendos trado, non qui in-
terpfete ullo indigeas ad graecos Marci intelligendos, sed qui deditissimi iam pridem tibi
hominis litterarios lusus aspernaturus [-os M S] non sis. Cum enim tui uterque simus at-
que tn Marco egregiam uirtutem doctrinamque lauderis, in Zenobio uirtutis imitationcm
ac vpluntatem, ut puto, non improbabis. Ut enim ille inquit, ‘in magnis et uoluisse sat
est’ In s. Svluestro XIIII Kalendas Martii M DXVII. [signed] Fr. Zenobius Acciaiolus,
O. F. ” Acciaiuoli’s rendition of Musurus then follows, with the title: “ Marcus Musurus
Platqnem instruit tamquam Aldi oratorem futurum ad Leonem X pont. max.’’, me. Dive
Platp, innumeris heros comes additis [uc] divis.
 APPEN D ICES 461

T h e pagan part of this tradition is derived from Book I of D iogenes L aer­

tius, which Ficino knew in T ra v e rsa ri’s tra n sla tio n ;’ the connection be­
A P P E N D I X 17 tween H ilary of Poitiers and A ugustine is taken from the la tte r’s De
Tnmtate; an d D ionysius the A reopagite is already assigned a central posi­
T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F F IC I N O ’S “ A N C IE N T T H E O L O G Y ” tion as the link betw een pagan and C hristian religious w isdom . But there
is as yet no distinction betw een periods of ’ ’in sp iratio n ” and “ in terp reta­
F icino’s conception of an “ ancient theology” is perhaps his m ost fam ous tio n ” , and n either Providence nor the com ing of C hrist plays any visible
teaching and one that is central to his outlook as a religious thinker. Yet role. T h e m atu re Ficino w ould be m uch m ore careful to show why the his­
the developm ent ot F icino’s ideas on the m a tte r has never been directly torical priority of the ancient theologians does not m ake them tru er and
tre a fe d .1 In this appendix, I shall try to establish at least the chief stages m ore venerable authorities th an the authentic w riters of C h ristian ity .
in this developm ent, which will serve to cast additional light on the charac­ In an o th er school oration in praise of m edicine, com posed at about the
ter of Ficino’s early religious beliefs and on his relationship to Pletho. sam e tim e, we see again how early in his life F icino’s fascination with a n ­
If we look at the earliest surviving passage where Ficino talks about the cient wisdom took hold. T his oration attem pts to reconstruct, in effect, a
ancient theology, a passage occu rrin g in his school oration De laudibusphi- prisca medicina derived from one “ d ivinity” , but passed dow n through two
losophiae from the m id-1450s, we notice som e significant differences from teaching traditions. O n the one hand are the H ebrew s and “ A rabs”
F icino’s later accounts of the prisca theologia. First, Ficino dares to assert (M oslem s) who h anded dow n m edical wisdom divinely given to A dam ; on
that the ancient theologians had “ in a certain w ay” a knowledge of the the o th er h and are the G reek and Egyptian theologians who used medical
C hristian T rin ity , a view he w ould later m odify considerably.2 Secondly, w isdom given to Asclepius by A pollo.6 T h e connection betw een philoso­
in this crude early sketch of the trad itio n , there is no m ention of O rpheus phy and m edicine, as well as between the cure of bodies and of souls, is
or Z oroaster, and, m ore im po rtan tly , no attem p t to reconcile the historical already em phasized. T o support these points, Ficino quotes the Char-
prim acy of the ancient theology w ith p resum ed superioritv of C hristian mides,7 m entions Z oroaster as the first of the M agi, and also quotes from
revelation. G iven the general R enaissance assum ption that earlier m eans
better, this is a surprising om ission. In stead , we have a prisca theologia
earn theologiam in Graeciam transferences, ab eodem ipso Deo principium esse naturae,
found am ong the E gyptians and the “ A ra b s” ,3 whence it is passed to the veritatem doctrinae, vitae felicitatem disputaverunt. Quod Platonis de republica liber.
G reeks by P ythagoras, H eraclitus, and Plato; thence it is h anded to Parmenides, Timaeus, ac Iamblici et Proculi Theologia testatur. Secutus post eos veteres
Dionysius Areopagita, Platonicus primo ac deinde Christianus, idem in libris suis latissime
H ilarius and St. A ugustine, “ the best of the L atin theologians” , via
disputavit. Quod quidem diu postea Hvlarius et Aurelius Augustinus inter Latinos
D ionysius the A reopagite, who was “ first a P latonist, then a C h ristian . ” 45 theologos principes observavere.”
5 See Mostra, pp. 11-12, which gives lurcher examples ot Ficino s early use ot Diogenes
Laertius.
1 There are scattered remarks in P. O. Kristeller, II pensiero filosoftco di Marsiho Ficino 6 O p . , p. 759: ‘Aledicinae autem origo. siue Hebraeos et Arabes sequaris, siue Graecos
(Florence. 1953; repr. 1988 with revisions), chapter 1; Walker, chapter 1; K. H. Dannen- Aegyptiosque theologos, ab ipsa diutnitate manarat. Nam Hebraei et Arabes primum
leldt. The Pseudo-Zoroastrian Oracles in the Renaissance,’’ Studies in the Renaissance 4 humani generis parentem Adam earn diuino lumine sapientiam adeptum asserunt, reliqui
(1957):: 13, note 34; I. Klutstein, Xtarsiho Ficino et la Theologie Ancienne. Istituto Nazionale uero Apollinem ab hominum Deorumque parente Ioue illam suscepisse uirtutem ad
di Studi sul Rinascimento, Quaderni di “ Rinascimento” 5 (Florence, 1987), p. 5. humani salutem generis tradidere, qui deinde idem Aesculapio reuelarit. ’ [etc. J
Op., p. 768: "In his praeterea tribus appellationibus Dei, quae a veteribus Philosophis 7 O p . , p. 760: “ Scribit in Charrnide Plato: Magos illos animae corporisque medicos
primupn inductae luerunt, Christianam quoque trinitatem quoddamodo contineri. Philo- Zalmoxidis Zoroastrisque sectatores arbitrari omnia corporis turn bona, turn mala ab
sophiag insuper tres species a Platone adinventas atque distributas huic naturae trinitati anima fluere in ipsum corpus, quemadmodum oculorum qualitas fluit a cerebro. cerebri
ex omhibus suis partibus respondere ... Ex quo iam satis perspicuum esse potest, philoso- qualitas a toto corpore. Atque ut impossibile est oculos curari nisi curetur cerebrum et
phiam ornni ex parte toti atque perfectae (ut ita dixerim) divinitati congruere, Patrisque cerebrum curari nisi corpus totum, ita corpus totum nisi anima bene ualeat non posse bene
et Filii ac Spiritus potentiae, sapientiae et bonitatis plenam quandam et absolutam (quan­ ualere, valetudinem uero animae curari Apollineis incantationibus quibusdam. id est, phi-
tum npbis conceditur) imaginem continere. ’ Compare this to Ficino’s later reservations losophicis rationibus. Socrates praeterea narrauit uulgatum esse apud Thraces eos medicos
about whether the pagans had any real knowledge ot the Trinity, tor which see vol. 1, tali quadam curatione nonnullos homines seruare immortales consueuisse; tantum est
|). 8571'. animae in corpus imperium, tanta potestas.’ Ct. Charm. 156B-E. The passage is also
" Arabi was Fravcrsari’s mistranslation tor Repeat in Diogenes Laertius 1.1 etc., and cjuoted in Stobaeus, but I know of no medieval or Renaissance Latin version ficino could
it was doubtless I ravcrsari whom Ficino was following here. have borrowed this rendering trom. There is also an allusion to the passage in Eusebius,
' Op., p. 768: "Prisca vcro Aegyptiorum et Arabum theologia tradidit Deurn esse ex- Praep. evang. X I.3.7, which Ficino would have known in the translation ol rrebizond, but
istendi eognosi endi agendique principium. Unde Pvthagoras, Heraclitus atque Plato. the rendering here is different from and fuller than George s rendering ol Eusebius. As
462 PART I A PPENDICES 463

the Hymns o f O rp h eu s, but does not m en tio n the Chaldaean Oracles n o r their thagoras, Philolaus, and concluding (absoluta) w ith Plato. T h is new succes­
attrib u tio n to Z o ro a ste r.8 In this o ratio n , too, Ficino argues for the h a r­ sion reflects not only F icino’s reading of w hat the F athers had to say about
m ony of C h ristian ity and pag an w isdom w ith o ut show ing why or w hether the ancient theology, b u t also a careful study of P ro clu s’ Platonic Theology.10
C h ristian w isdom is different from o r su p erio r to pag an . Since philoso­ D espite freq u en t claim s to the contrary, then, there is no reason to sup­
phical m edicine begins w ith A dam and A sclepius, and is h an d ed dow n via pose th at F icino’s original versions of the ancient theology are derived
a teaching trad itio n , it is h ard to see why the earlier sources should not be from Pletho. Even W alker, who diffidently endorses the opposite view, ad ­
the m ore valuable. m its th at “ once Ficino had begun reading such authors as Eusebius, P ro ­
Aifter the late 1450s, how ever, Ficino w ithdrew from any youthful ra d i­ clus, or even A ugustine, the general theory of the ancient theology would
calism he m ay have toyed w ith and devoted him self seriously to the task occur to him in any ca se .’’11 In fact, the only elem ent of the tradition
of in terp retin g ancient theological w isdom in such a way as to be both Ficino can dem onstrably be shown to have borrow ed from Pletho is the
useftul to and harm o n io u s w ith orthodox C h ristian ity . O n e m ay see signs identification of Z oroaster as the au th o r of the Chaldaean Oracles, an a ttrib u ­
of m a tu re r reflection in F icin o ’s later versions of the ancient theology. In tion m ade by Pletho in his com m entary on the sam e te x t.12 By Ficino this
the preface to his translation of the Pimander, w ritten in 1463, the E gyptian a ttrib u tio n is first m ade in his own Platonic Theology (X V II. 1) of 1474,
and G reek theologians are now g rouped w ith M oses as instances of an although he evidently knew P leth o ’s com m entary as early as 1467/69.13
oldqr dispensation which prefigured the new faith of C h ristian ity ; H erm es F icino’s doctrine of the ancient theology is not then a m atter of Plethonian
T rism egistus is m ade into a pro p h et who, like the H ebrew prophets, fore­ influence, b ut of independent invention from patristic and doxographic
sees the com ing of C h rist an d the new d isp e n satio n .9 T h is shift in his ac­ sources.
count of the gentile predecessors of C h ristia n ity seems to show th at Ficino Som etim e after 1469, in his Philebus com m entary, we get for the first
had rethought his views on pag an philosophy in light of certain of the tim e the form of the ancient theology that Ficino uses for the rest of his life:
C h u rch F athers, especially A ugustine, L actan tius, an d E usebius. W e are a trad itio n of six theologians, Z oroaster, H erm es T rism egistus, O rpheus,
also given a new diadoche o f six ancient theologians, beginning with
10 Ficino’s manuscript, now MS Rice. 70, contains on f. 4v an annotation on the “ prin-
H erm es T rism egistus, co n tin u in g thro u g h O rp h eu s, A glaophem us, Py-
cipes theologie gentilium’’ (“ primo Orpheus, a quo Aglaophemus, a quo Pythagoras, a
quo Philolaus, a quo Plato habuit’’), which corresponds to Plat. Theol. 1.5, ed. Saffrey-
there are to my knowledge no other ancient testimonia for this passage of the Charmides, Westerink, 1 25f. See H. D. Saffrey, “ Notes platoniciennes de Marsile Ficin dans un
and no previous Latin translations, one must conclude that Ficino translated it himself, manuscrit de Proclus, cod. Riccardianus 70,’’ Biblioth'eque d ’Humanisme el Renaissance 21
or had a friend translate it for him. (1959): 161-184. Saffrey argued that Ficino possessed this manuscript only after the death
8 Ibid.: “ Hinc ita in sanitatis hvmno cecinit Orpheus: ‘Absque te cuncta sunt homini- of the scribe, Matthew Camariotes, but this argument has been plausibly contested by S.
bus tnutilia’. ” This quotation is not listed in Klutstein’s Appendix IV (Theologie Ancienne, Gentile in Aiostra , pp. 37-38 (with further bibliography). I am unable to accept Walker s
pp. 44-45), containing references to the Orphic Hymns in Ficino’s works, but cp. ibid., p. suggestion (reported by Klutstein, p. 5, note 13) that Hermes primacy in the 1463 list of
100, no. LXVII, line 8: “ Te enim sine omnia inutilia sunt hominibus.’’ As there is no prisci is simply owing to the fact that the 1463 list happens to occur in a preface to the
other known translation of the Orphic hymns before Ficino’s and the anonymous version Hermetica. For in a parallel text, a letter of 1457 (“ De divino furore’’, O p . , p. 612), which
treated by Klutstein, the presence of this quotation in a text of the mid-1450s, together with is in effect a commentary on the Phaedrus, Ficino also makes Hermes the ultimate source
the {passage translated from the Charmides (previous note), tends to support the hypothesis of ancient philosophy.
that Ficino already knew some Greek before the end of the decade; on this problem, see 11 Walker, p. 13.
Maijcel, pp. 243-247, and Gentile (1983), passim. 12 J. Bidez and F. Cumont, Les mages hellenises (Brussels, 1938), 2:25If. Bidez and Cu-
9 O p . , p. 1836: “ Eo tempore, quo Moses natus est, floruit Atlas astrologus Promethei mont argue that Pletho’s attribution of the Oracles to Zoroaster stems from a confusion in
physici frater, ac maternus avus maioris Mercurii, cuius nepos fuit Mercurius Trismegis­ the manuscript tradition. But it is also possible that Pletho connected them with Zoroaster
tus. ... Primus igitur theologiae appellatus est autor [Hermes Trismegistus], eum [cum on the basis of a fragment of Nicolaus Damascenus preserved in the Excerpta histonca iussu
Op. ] secutus Orpheus secundas antiquae theologiae partes obtinuit, Orphei sacris initiatus Constantim Porphyrogeniti imp. collecta, ed. Buettner-Wobst, 28 (67): xat oi te tt)? E i PuXXt;?
est Aglaophemus [om. 0 p .\, Aglaophemo successit in theologia Pythagoras, quern Xpryifiol t<£ te Zoopoaorpou Xoyta iarjei, xtX. Another possibility is that Pletho found
Phildlaus sectatus est, divi Platonis nostri praeceptor. Itaque una priscae theologiae undi- resemblances between the Chaldaean Oracles and the Myth of Er, Er being identified with
que isibi consona secta, ex theologis sex miro quodam ordine conflata est, exordia sumens Zoroaster by authors cited in Proclus, In R em p. , ed. Kroll, p. 109, Clement of Alexandria,
a Mercurio, a divo Platone penitus absoluta. Scripsit autem Mercurius libros ad Strom. (PG 5:157), and Eusebius, Praep. Evang. XIII. 13.30 (676A), ed. Des Places, p. 351.
divinarum rerum cognitionem pertinentes quamplurimos, in quibus, proh Deus immor- Cp. for instance the Mocytxa Xoyta xcov and too Zoopoaarpou paytov, line 41, ed. Kieszkowski,
talis! quam arcana mysteria, quam stupenda panduntur oracula, nec ut philosophus tan- p. 158, and Rep. X, 616Bf. But it is too much to suppose that Ficino made the same deduc­
turn, sed ut prophcta saepenumero loquitur canitque futura. Hie ruinam praevidit priscae tion independently.
religionis, hie ortum novae fidei, hie adventum Christi, hie futurum iudicium, resurrec- 13 See Ficino, Comm, in Conv. II. 4, ed. Marcel, p. 150 and note 2. For the date of Ficino’s
tionem seculi, beatorum gloriam, supplicia peccatorum.’’ Symposium commentary, see App. 19.
 464 PART I

Aglajophemus, Pythagoras, and P la to .*1*4 P o o r Philolaus, who form erly

held a place in the m agical six on the strength of having been P lato's
teacher, has now been dro p p ed in favor of Z oroaster. Z o ro a ste r’s p ro m o ­ A P P E N D I X 18

tion to the head of the list is p robably, ag ain , a m ark of P lethonian influ­
ence) lor Pletho had laid special em phasis on Z oroaster as the source of O N T H E T E X T U A L H IS T O R Y O F F IC IN O ’S
Platonic theology.1516It is especially significant because it throw s the priori- P L A T O N IS OPERA O M N IA
tv of the Ju d a ic to the G entile revelation into doubt; in the 1463 version,
Ficipo had followed A ugustine (Civ. Dei X V I I I .39) in m aking H erm es A. Dependence on Earlier Translations
belong to a generation posterior to M oses. M ost of F icin o ’s m atu re view
of th£ ancient theology seems to have been w orked out d u rin g this period F icino’s fam iliarity with and exploitation of the earlier tradition of Plato
ironv 1469-1474, w hen he was com posing his capolavoro, the Platonic Latinus has been slowly em erging in scattered footnotes du rin g the last
Theology, and the treatise De chnstiana religionef8 his intense interest in the d e c a d e .1 T he purpose of the present appendix is to survey more
subject d u rin g this period was possibly the result of controversies he was thoroughly the extent and n atu re of his borrow ings from previous
involved in at that tim e with certain J e w s .17 From later discussions of the tran slatio n s.2 In general it m ay be rem arked that F icin o ’s use of earlier
ancient theologians it is clear that Ficino cam e ultim ately to think in term s versions passes th rough every degree of dependence, from w ord-for-w ord
of three schools of gentile theology, the oldest being the P ersian, the next borrow ings, to occasional extracts, to critical revisions, to ' ‘lexical con­
youngest being the E gyptian (closely related to M osaic theology if not ac­ su ltatio n ,3*5 to com plete independence. It w ould of course be absurd to
tually derived Irom it), and a still y o u n g er G reek trad itio n which begins blam e Ficino for “ p lag iarism ” , a sin created by positivist scholarship
with O rpheus and culm inates in P la to .18 T h e reason for the three schools, and the prin tin g press, and now here found in the p rem odern catalogue
I believe, is geographical. A ccording to m edieval an d early R enaissance of intellectual vices.
cosm ography there are three co n tin en ts, Asia. A frica, and E urope;
F icin p ’s conception of the an cien t theology w ould thus supply each conti­ 1. Platonis Epistulae X II. W e have already noted (vol. 1, p. 306 above)
nent with its own trad itio n , a C h ald aean one for Asia, a H erm etic one for that Ficino follows B runi in excluding Letter X I I I from the canon and in
Africa, and the O rphic trad itio n for E urope. As Ficino w rote in the De assigning Letters I and V to D ion rath er th an to Plato. W e m ay note in
chnstiana religione (Op. , p. 4): “ D iv in a p ro v id en tia non perm ittit esse aliquo passing that Ficino restores the p arag rap h at the end of Letter I I (314C
in tem pore ullam m u n d i regionem om nis prorsus religionis e x p e rte m .”
1 Ficino’s use of Brunt’s versions tor his own translations was first noted by L.
Cesarini Martinelli, "In margine al Commento di Angelo Poliziano sulle Selve di
Stazio,” Interpres 1 (1978): 103, note 12 (in the case of the Epistulae); bv M. J. B. Allen
4 Allen (1975), pp. 180, 246; for the date, see below, p. 483; see also the letter to (1981), p. 249. notes 102-104 (in the case of the Phaedrus); by Berti, p. 911. (for the Cnto)\
Cavalcanti written about the same time (certainly after 1467) in Op. 634 and 1945 where by Gentile (1983), pp. 37-38, note 1, p. 54, note 4 and 55, note 1 (for the Phaedrus)-, and
Zoroaster is first considered in association with the other ancient theologians. independently by the present writer (for the Epistulae, Phaedrus, Apology, and Cnto, in
11 S^e Pletho s trpoi; ExoXaptou urcep ’ApiaxoxeXoo avTiXfipei?, a copy of which (MS "Latin Translations of Plato in the Renaissance (diss., Columbia Univ., 1984), pp.
Rice. (6) Ficino owned and annotated; on f. 27v ( = PL 160: 984A), Ficino noted a pxh 193-195; S. Gentile, "Note sui manoscritti greci di Platone utilizzati da Marsilio
nXaxcopxfK OeoXoytai; dbxo Zcupodaxpou. See Mostra, pp. 55-57. For the connection between Ficino,’’ in Scritti in onore di Eugenio Gann (Pisa, 1987), p. 74; see also Gentile in Mostra,
Plato afid Zoroastrianism, see Pliny, Nat. Hist. X X X . 1.9; Lactantius, Div. inst. IV.2.4; pp. 10-11 and Hankins (1986), p. 288f. Berti points out (p. 93) the consequence that
Aeneas Gazaeus, Theophr. , ed. Colonna, p. 8 (a text Ficino owned and annotated); Proclus, some conjectures attributed to Ficino in modern Greek texts of Plato should actually be
In R em p., ed. Kroll, 2: 109; Olympiodorus, In Ale. I 11.138-141; Anon. Proleg. V I.9-22. credited to Bruni. Ficino copied Bruni’s translation of the Gorgias in Ambros. S 14 sup.
16 See Op., pp. 25, 156, 268, and 386. (Cat. A, no. 169). He quoted Brum’s translations of the Phaedrus, Epistulae, and Phaedo
17 Verde, 4.1:125-128. in his early works, and his letter De divino furore is in effect a commentary on Brum s
18 See esp. the letter to Johannes Pannonius (O p . , p. 871), the preface to Plotinus (O p ., translation; see Gentile (1983).
p. 1537), and the letter to Jacobus Rondonus (O p . , p. 956); the analysis of religious tradi­ 2 I omit any examples of Ficino s borrowings irom Brum s Cnto and Phaedrus and refer
tions inj terms of the concept of pnmum in aliquo genere, discussed in vol. 1, p. 2851., also ap­ the reader to the ample discussion of Berti, p. 9 If., and to the examples given in the
pears ftp- the first time in these letters. studies of Gentile and Allen cited in note 1.
5 A term I use to describe instances where a translator uses a previous version basically
as a substitute for a dictionary, borrowing some of the earlier translator s vocabulary and
renderings of particular idioms, but maintaining syntactical and stylistic independence.
46(5 PART I APPE ND ICE S 467

7-315A 5) which B runi had for som e reason dropped (vol. 1, p. 79, £pL£ouSapou aTC£Tp£c|i£v to crr]fjL£tov, xai £ycoy£ xot? xaxacjir]cpiaap£vot(; pou xai xot<;
above). For the rest, F icin o ’s tran slatio n is th roughout heavily d ep endent xaTT)yopoi<; ou Tcavu xaX£7taivoL).
on B ru n i’s, with the exception o f Letter /, w here Ficino p erhaps was anx-
ioup to conceal his debt to the earlier version. T h e o ther letters m ay best Bruni (ibid., ff. 81v-82r) Ficino (ibid, f. 17Ira)
be described as a critical revision o f the B runi translation, w ith m any Vos quoque, o iudices, bene spe- Vos quoque, o iudices, bene de morte
passages taken whole cloth from the earlier version. Ficino restores rare de morte debetis, et hoc sperare debetis, idque unum cogitare
unum uerum esse cogitare, quia uerum est uiro videlicet bono nihil
phrases om itted by B runi an d frequently m odifies B runi in the direction mali accidere posse neque viventi ne­
uiro bono nihil mali accidere pot­
of greater literalness and philosophical accuracy. T h e following exam ple est, neque in uita neque post que defuncto neque res illius a diis
frofn Letter VI gives som e sense of the ch aracter of F icin o ’s revisions. mortem, neque negliguntur a deo negligi, neque vero mea nunc casu
illius res, neque ea quae nunc aliquo acciderunt, sed mihi id con­
Ep. VI, 322D: ’Epa<rcq> 8e xat K optaxai, 7tpo<; xfj -cdiv d8d>v ao<pux xfj xaXfj xauxr], mihi contigerunt ad casum fuere, stat, mori iam et a laboribus liberari
cpt|p’ iyai, xaiicep yipouv uv, rcpoaSav aocpia<; rcepi xou<; 7tovTipou<; xai a8(xou<; sed constat quod iam mori me et melius extitisse. Atque hanc ob
cpuXaxxixiji; xai t iv o s dpuvxixfis 8uvap£<o<;. aitetpoi yap etat 8ia to p£0’ ripcLv ab his curis liberari mihi melius causam diuinum illud signum mihi
[lexpicov ovxoiv xat ou xaxcov aux^ov 8iax£xpicp£vai too (3iou- 8to 8t) toutcov erat. Ista de causa non aduer- non obstitit. Equidem haud ad­
TtpoaSetv £i7iov, tva pr; dvayxd^covTat vr\q dXr)0ivfi? p£v apLeXeiv aotpta?, T7j<; 8e satum est signum illud contra modum his indignor qui accusarunt
dv0poj7rtvr)<; T£ xat avayxatai; £7tt[i.&Xeta0ai ptetCovto^ fj 8ei. fieri consuetum. Equidem nec me uel condemnarunt.
damnantibus me iudicibus neque
Bruni (Vat. lat. 3348, f. 143r) Ficino (Opera 1491, f. 332 rb) accusatoribus admodum indignor.
Erasto autem et Dorisco praeter Erasto autem et Corisco praeter sapien­
sapientiam istam pulcherrimam tiam istam de speciebus pulcherri­ It is notew orthy that F icin o ’s translation is m ore strictly literal as regards
quam habent, alia insuper, ut mam, alia insuper, affirmo etsi sum
mea fert opinio est, opus sapien- senex, opus esse sapientia aduersus vocabulary (labores ra th e r th an cura for ftpaypaxa; dei for 0eot instead of
tia adversus improbos cauendi et improbos iniustosque cauendi et ad B ru n i’s C hristian izatio n Deus) b u t freer as regards w ord-order and m ore
ad resistendum potentia. Sunt resistendum potentia. Sunt enim inex- classical in syntax (infinitive ra th e r than quod w ith constat; periphrasis in
enim, licet etate senes, tamen in- perti fraudum, quia penes nos cum a relative clause ra th e r th an participles in oblique cases). Ficino also p er­
experti fraudum ex eo, quia cum hominibus uiuere diu consueti sunt m its him self a gloss, ad d in g diuinum to signum.
hominibus uiuere consueti sunt minime malis. Quapropter illos
minime malis. Quapropter illos huiusmodi quadam indigere dico
indigere dico cautione ne compel- cautione, ne compellantur ueram negli- 3. Symposium. Ficino also produces a “ critical revision’’ of those parts of
lantur ueram sapientiam relin- gere sapientiam et humanam hanc B ru n i’s translation of A lcibiades’ speech which correspond reasonably
quere et humanam hanc sapien­ necessariamque sapientiam plus quam closely w ith the G reek text; w here B ru n i’s text tu rn s into a free a d ap ta­
tiam necessariam plus quam deceat meditari.
oporteat meditari. tion (see above, p. 399), Ficino produces a fresh version.
Bruni (ibid., f. 62v): Dico igitur, inquit Alcibiades, Socratem esse per-
Ficino has restored B ru n i’s om issions (including the significant om ission similem Silenis istis qui ab sculptoribus inter imagines figurantur, quos fa-
of “ that beautiful w isdom concerning the Form s", xcov eiSoov) and corrects ciunt artifices fistulas aut tibias tenere. Qui si bifariam diuisi atque aperti
his m isreading of o v t e <j for cov.2 sint, reperiuntur intus imagines habere deorum. Rursusque eum dico per-
similem esse Satyro Marsie. Et quod aspectu quidem persimilis eis es, ne
tu quidem, o Socrates, negabis. Quod uero in aliis quoque similitudinem
2. Apology. T h e ch aracterizatio n o f F icin o ’s ren dering as a critical revi­ eorum habes, deinceps iam audi. Procax tu quidem es, an non? Si non
sion of B runi also applies to m an y passages of the Apology, as in this ex­ fateris, equidem testes adducam. An non cantator longe melior quam
am ple taken from S o crates’ p ero ratio n . Marsias?

Ap. 41D: ’AXXa xat upa<; XPT & av8pe<; Sixaaxai, eueXirtSai; etvat 7tpo<; xov Ficino (ibid., f. 156v): Socratem assero persimilem Silenis istis qui sedentes inter
0avaxov, xat ev t i t o u t o StavoetaOat aX^0ei;, oxt oiix eaxtv avSpi aya0(p xaxov alias imagines a sculptoribus figurantur, ita ut fistulas tibiasue teneant. Qui si
ouSev o u t £ CaivTi ooxe TeXeuTTjaavTt, otiSe apeXetTat u7io 0eaiv xa xouxou bifariam dividantur, reperiuntur intus imaginem habere deorum. Satyro quoque
Tcpayptaxa- ou8e xa epta vuv ano xou auxoptdxou yeyovev, aXXa ptot SfjXov sort Marsye similem esse dico. Et quod aspectu quidem his es persimilis, ne tu quidem, o
t o u t o , o t i t]8 t ) T£0vavat xai aTCT]XXdx0ai upayptaxoiv PiXxtov Tjv pot. 8ta t o u t o xat Socrates, negabis. Quod uero in aliis quoque similutidinem eorum habes, deinceps iam
468 PART I
A PPEN D ICES 469

audi. Procax et contumeliosus es, an non? Si non fateris, equidem testes adducarn. xouxcov p.7]8ev TrapaXurtfi, (jlt]x £ axor] [ir\xz otjai; p.r]X£ dXyr]8cov (i.r)3 e xt$ t]8 ovt|, aXX’
An non tibicen, et tibicen quidem Marsya longe prestantior? oxt paXiaxa auxr] xa 0 ’ auxr]v yiyvrixai ieba a yatpeiv xo ad>pa, xai xa0 ’ oaov
Ficijno’ s version again Fills lacunae left by B ru n i, and removes the Suvaxat [ii\ xotvcovouaa auxai ti.r]8’ d7txop£v7] opeyiqxat xou ovxo?. ”Eaxt xauxa.
Ouxouv xat svxau0 a 7) xou 91X006900 chuX"h paXiaxa anapaCst xo acopa xai 9£uy£t
bowdlerization o f auXrprris and other bowdlerizations noted in B ru n i's arc’ auxou, CtjteT 8 e auxr] xa0 ’ auxr,v ytyv£a0 ai; OaivExat. Tt 8e 8 tj xd xoux S e , &>
version (the same is true o f F ic in o ’ s revisions o f the Phaedrus, though not Zippi'a; Oapiv xt Etvat Sixatov auxo h o u S e v ; OapEv pevxot Aia. Kai au xaXov
o f one place in the Gorgias). Some reasons w hy Ficino felt he could afford y e xt xai aya 0 ov; FIccx; 8’ ou; ”H8r) ouv ttoutcoxe xt xcov xotouxcov xot<; O90aX(jtoii;
not to censor his Plato , at least in the Symposium and the Phaedrus, were e i 8 e ^; OuSaptui;, rj 8’ oq. ’AXX’ aXXr] xtvi aia 0 rja£t xa>v 81a xou oa)(xaxo<; £9rjcj^a)

suggested in vol. 1, p. 3 1 7 f . auxtav; Xiya) 8 e xrepi 7uavxtov, otov peyEOoui; 7i£pt, uytEta?, iax6o<;, xai xcuv aXXcov
svi Xoyco d7cdvxa)v xfj? ouaiap 0 xuxavst sxaaxov ov apa 8ta xou acupaxoi; auxtuv
xo dXr]0 £axaxov 0£aj7t£txat, r\ o>8e
4. Gorgias and 5. Phaedo. In the case o f B ru n i's earlier and less expert
translations o f the Gorgias and Phaedo, Ficino adopted a more critical at­ Bruni (ibid., f. 97v): Nonne igitur ex putando maxime fit aliquid sibi
titude. H is revisions of B ru n i’ s text are far deeper than in the case o f the manifestum? Ita prorsus. Optime autem id facit, cum nihil eum perturbat
neque auditus neque visus neque dolor neque voluptas. sed cum ipse per
dialogues already discussed, and in m any passages one can only regard
se quam maxime potest a corpore se removens nec aliquid communicans
Fic in o ’ s as an entirely fresh version. T h is specimen from the beginning illi neque attingens veri inveniendi llagrat cupiditate? Ita prorsus. Igitur et
o f the Gorgias (4 4 7 A ) gives a fair impression o f the relationship between in hoc philosophi animus maxime contemnit corpus, ab eoque aufugit
the versions. queritque per se ipsum existere? Quid vero hec, o Simmia? Fatemur aliquid
esse ius ipsum an nihil? Aliquid, o Socrates. Nonne bonum et honestum?
5r«ni(ibid., f. 13v): [Cal.] Belli et pugne oportere aiunt, o Socrates, ita par- Quidni? An tu igitur eiusmodi aliquid uidisti unquam oculis? Numquam,
ticipem esse? So. An, quernadmodum dici solet, post lestiuitatem uenimus inquit. An alio quodam sensu comprehendisti? Loquor autem de omnibus,
tardique sumus? Cal. Et urbanam nimium lestiuitatem; multa enim ac ueluti de magnitudine, de sanitate, de robore, et ut breviter comprehen-
preclara Gorgias nobis paulo ante monstrauit. So. Horum certe, o dam, de ceterorum omnium essentia, id est. quid unumquodque sit. Num
Callicles, causa est Cherephon iste, qui nos in foro moram trahere coegit. per corpus veritas eorum cernitur?
Che. Nihil id quidem impedimenti fuerit,- o Socrates: ego nanque ipse
medebor. Nam mihi amicus est Gorgias; itaque siue nunc mauis siue alias Ficino (ibid., f. 177r): So. An non sicubi proprie in ipsa ratiocinatione fit sibi
eadem ilia nobis ostendet. Cal. Quid, o Cherephon? Cupitne Socrates aliquid eorum que uere sunt manifestum? Sim. Ita est. So. Ratiocinatur
audire Gorgiam? Che. Ob hoc ipsum certe aderamus. autem tunc optime quando horum nihil eum perturbat, neque auditus ne­
que visus neque dolor neque uoluptas, sed quam maxime seipsum in se
Ficino (ibid., f. 119v): Cal. Sic ad bellum et pugnam ferunt, o Socrates, ac- recipiens deserit corpus, neque quicquam quoad fieri potest cum illo com­
cedendum. So. Numquid post festum, ut dici solet, uenimus tardiores? Cal. municans neque attingens, ipsum quod uere est affectat. Sim. Est ita. So.
Et ualde quidem urbanum\ multa enim et praeclara paulo ante Gorgias nobis ex- Nonne et in hoc philosophi animus maxime contemnit corpus, ab eoque
posuit. So. Tarditatis huius causa hie Cherephon, o Callicles, fuit, qui aufugit, queritque secundum seipsum vivere? Sim. Apparet. So. Quid vero
trahere nos moram inforo coegit. Che. Nihil id quidem impedimenti. o Socrates, fuent. hec, o Simmia? Dicimusne iustum ipsum esse aliquid, an nihil? Sim. Ali­
Ego enim et remedium adhibebo. Nam mihi amicus est Gorgias. Itaque, siue nunc quid, per Jovem. So. Rursus ipsum pulchrum ipsumque bonum aliquid
siue alias mauis, nobis eadem demonstrabit. Cal. Quid, o Cherephon? Cupitne esse? Sim. Quidni? So. Num aliquando horum aliquid oculis percepisti?
Socrates audire Gorgiam? Che. Ob idipsum certe aderamus. Sim. Numquam. So. An alio quodam sensu corporis attigisti? Loquor
autem de omnibus, ueluti de ipsa magnitudine, de sanitate, de robore ipso
Fic ip o ’ s rendering is again m arkedly more ad sensum than B r u n i’ s; freer ac summatim de ceterorum omnium essentia, idest quid unumquodque sit;
and less tied to Plato ’ s w ord-order. It is also clearer and more accurate, nunquid per corpus quod [quoque ed. ] in his uerissimum est perspicitur?
as well as being stylistically superior to B r u n i’ s (here) rather inspissated
L a tin . A n d if one compares the following passage o f Fic in o ’ s Phaedo It is a measure o f the increased sophistication o f lay philosophical culture
in Italy that all o f the mistakes and misunderstandings o f the
translation with the same passage o f B r u n i’ s version, discussed in A p p .
3 A , it is clear that Fic in o ’ s understanding o f Pla to ’ s philosophy is also metaphysical background o f this passage which we noted earlier in the
much superior to B ru n i’ s. translation o f B ru n i (A p p . 3 A ) have disappeared in F ic in o ’ s version.
A lth o u g h Ficino still uses B runi for isolated phrases, his superior grasp
(65C 2-E 3) ap’ ouv oux ev xq> Xoy(Cea0 ai z’Cizip tcou aXXo0 i xaxdSriXov auxf] ol the philosophical issues enables him to produce a far more accurate
yiyvsxat xi x o >v ovxcov ; Nat. Aoyi'Csxai 8 e y i ttou xoxe xaXXtaxa, xav auxpv rendering than B ru n i. M ost remarkable in F ic in o ’ s version o f this
470 PART I APPE N D IC E S 471

passage is p erhaps his translation o f ocutt] xa0’ auxriv ytyvexat as seipsum in Legg. 632D: ouxun;, <L Ijevot, eycuye r^OeXov av upas xai ext vuv PouXopai
se recipiens, show ing that he read P la to ’s description of the process of 8te£eX0eiv iztb q i v x o iq xou Aids Xeyopevots vopois xou; xe xou Ilo0tou ’ArcoXXcovos,
reasoning in light of the P lotinian d o ctrine of the soul’s “ tu rn in g w ith in ’’ ous Miva>s xe xat Auxoupyos eOexiqv, eveaxtv xe rcavxa xauxa, xat otcti xaijiv xtva
etXritpoxa StaSriXa eaxtv xu trepi vopcov ep7tetpco xexvrj etxe xat xtatv e'Oeatv, xoig
to the source of Being.
8e aXXots rjptv ou8apd»s xaxacpavfi.

6. jLaws and Epinomis. It is an in terestin g fact, in light of F icino’s George (ibid., f. 5r-v): Sic, o amici, ego uos uoluissem dicere. Nam haec om­
“ public” attitu d e to the Plato-A ristotle controversy th at Ficino makes nia in legibus Iovis et Apollinis Pythii quas Minos et Lycurgus con-
extensive use of G eo rg e’s translations o f the Laws and the Epinomis. It is scripserunt [-erint Bess.] inesse uidebitis. Que omnia patent illis, qui
artificio et exercitatione legum peritiam habent, ceteris uero nullo pacto.
truk that he incorporates m any (th o u g h not all) of B essarion’s corrections
fro(n Book V of the Calumniator.* But even so, it is surprising that Ficino Bessarion (Venetiis, 1502, f. 86r): Ita, hospites, audire a vobis vellem:
shduld have used G eorge so freely, given B essarion’s claims that the quomodo in iis legibus quae ad Iovem aut Apollinem Pythium ref’eruntur,
translation was utterly in com petent and that he had corrected only a quas Minos aut Lycurgus tulit, cuncta haec contineatur, et quo ordine
small proportion of G eo rg e’s m istakes. It is a good exam ple of F icino’s posita conspicua sint homini, qui legum siue arte siue more quodam usuque
independence and of his confidence in his own philological sense. I give peritus sit, nobis autem aliis minime pateant.6
below some characteristic instances of F icin o ’s use of the earlier transla­ Ficino (edn. cit., f. 268v): Ita equidem, hospites, uoluissem, atque etiam
tio n with his direct borrow ings in italics. uolo a uobis exponi: quo pacto in legibus Iovis et Apollinis Pythii, quas
Minos et Lycurgus scripserunt, insint hec omnia, et quonam ordine posita
Legg. 626d: TQ Sjeve ’A0T]vat£—ou yap ae ’Axxtxov eOeXoip.’ av itpoaayopeoetv
pateant illi qui artificio uel usu quodam legum peritiam habet, nobis vero
Soxeii; yap pot 0£ou Erccuvoptai; al[io<; etvai paXXov e7tovopaC£<J0ac xov yap
aliis nullo modo pateant.
Xoyov ere’ apxnv op0u><; avayaytuv aacpeax&pov e7toiT]aa<;, uxrte paov aveupryieu; oxt
vuv S t) ucp’ ripcov opdcoq eppr|07i to TroXeptotx; etvat roxvTai; 7taatv 8Ti|xoaia te xat iSia
T o help in tran slatin g this typically turgid specim en of P la to ’s late style,
ix c ia x o v q aoxou^ aiytatv auxoi?.
Ficino has collated G eorge’s translation not only w ith the G reek, but
Trebizond (Vat. lat. 2062, f. 2r) Ficino (edn. cit., f. 268r) also, evidently, w ith B essarion’s Examinatio, and has produced a transla­
tion m arkedly better th an either of his predecessors, even if it does not
O Atheniensis amice, non enim O Atheniensis hospes, non enim ego te
ego te Atticum nominare amplius Atticum nominare uolo. Videris quite capture all the subtleties of the G reek. (T h e tendency to iron out
velim, cum ab ipsa dea cognomi- namque dee ipsius Athenas id est the incessant use of prolepsis characteristic of P la to ’s late style is a regular
nari appellarique dignior uidea- Palladis cognomento dignior esse. feature of F icino’s version).
ris. Nam universam rationem Nempe universam hanc rationem ad
recte ad principium reductam ita principium reductam ita planam
7. Republic. Ficino was ap parently far m ore critical of C h rysoloras’ and
planam fecisti ut facilius inueniri fecisti, ut facilius inveniri queat modo
queat quicquid a nobis modo pro­ probe fuisse dictum, hostes videlicet U b erto D ecem b rio ’s translation of the Republic, for his version is for the
be dictum sit, hostes videlicet omnes omnibus esse tarn publice m ost p art entirely fresh. O n occasion, how ever, one m ay glimpse patches
universos esse universis tarn pu- quam privatim, et singulos sibi ipsis. of the earlier translation peeking through the surface of F icino’s version,
blice quam privatim et singulos as in this exam ple from Book V I (511C — D).
sibi ipsis.
Chrysoloras-Decembrio (Ambros. B 123 sup., f. 184r): Reliquam igitur in-
Ficino repeats the unnecessary gloss universam and several of G eorge’s telligibilis partem dicere me etiam opineris, illud quod ipsa ratio
m istakes (none of them corrected by B essarion),*5 while im proving on demonstrandi potentia manifestat, suppositiones non principia fabricans,
G qorge’s inaccurate amice and rem oving the pleonastic appelanque\ he sed uere suppone < n > s tanquam basses atque principia, ut usque ad illud
quod supponi non potest ad principium veniens universi ac ipsum tangens,
adds an intratex tu al gloss “ id est P allad is” , as frequently elsewhere. iterumque tenens adherentibusque illi adherens assidue, sensibili prorsus
nullo utens, sed ipsis speciebus per ipsas ad ipsas atque ad speciem finiens
+ First noted by Gentile (1987), p. 74. Ficino’s study of Bessarion’s Calumniator, pub­
lished in 1469, constitutes some proof of his claim to have revised thoroughly his transla­
tion in the late 1470s; see vol. 1, p. 302. 6 Bessarion adds: “ Sic quod Plato requirit, et propterea leges illas minus integras esse
5 A more accurate translation might be, “ ut facilius invenires quod iam a nobis recte arbitratur, quia id non habent, hoc interpres inesse affirmat; cumque Plato, quo ordine
dictum sit, hostes esse omnibus publice omnes, et singulos privatim sibi ipsis.’’ posita pateant, roget, hie patere omnia asserit.”
472 PART I APPE N D IC E S 473

ad linem usque perueniat. Intelligo, inquit, quamquam minime sufficienter translation shows some signs of dependence. Since Ficino presum ably
ut cuperem. Videris enim arduam michi rem proponere. Moliris tamen saw the Calumniator only after he had com pleted a draft of the Phaedrus,
disserere partem entis atque inteJligibilis quam a demonstrationis scientia
Speculamur ilia esse clariorem que ab illis scientiis que artes nuncupantur this m ay be a case of revisions later inserted into the m argin of a w orking
quibus suppositiones pro principiis suggeruntur, et mente quidem cogun- copy. It is interesting that he evidently thought m ore of T re b iz o n d ’s
tur, non sensibus, quicumque ea uiderint intueri. translation of the Laws than of B essarion’s (or P e ro tti’s) efforts in the
sam e line, to ju d g e by the degree in w hich he borrow ed from either
Ficino (edn. cit., f. 219rb-va): SOC. Alteram intelligibihs partem ad illud tran slatio n .9 In any case, the relationship betw een the Calumniator and
ret'erre me scito, quod ipsa ratio per demonstrandi facultatem attingit, dum sup­
positiones non pro principiis habet, sed reuera pro suppositionibus accipit, F icin o ’s version is an o th er pro o f that Ficino devoted som e close study to
tamquam gradibus quibusdam et adminiculis utens, quo usque ad illud quod B essarion’s apologue.
non supponitur, ad pnncipium videlicet ueniens umversi ipsum attingat, et rur- Bessarion (Calumniator 1.4= Mohler 2:35. 39): SO. Oportet igitur eum qui
Sus adhereat illis que principio herent atque ita ad jinem usque perueniat nullo decepturus est alium et minime ipse decipi uelit, nosse similitudinem rerum
prorsus sensibili utens, sed ipsis speciebus per ipsas atque ad ipsas progrediens. ac dissimilitudinem. ... Harum ego, mi Phaedre, divisionum collectionum-
GLA. Intelligo tandem, quamquam minime sufficienter ut cuperem. Videris enim que semper cupidissimus fui, quo recte loqui possem atque intellegere.
mihi magnum opus proponere. Moliris quidem disserere partem illam uere ex- Quin etiam, si quando aliquem sua natura arbitror ad unum et plura posse
istentis et intelligibihs generis quam per demonstrationis scientiam speculamur, ilia respicere, huius libens vestigia tamquam divi cuiusdam sequor. Atque eos,
esse clariorem quam ex illis scientiis que artes appellantur investigamus, in quibus qui id agere possunt, rectene an non appellem, deus scit. Soleo tamen
pro principiis suppositiones habentur. Et qui ista considerant cogitatione cogun- adhuc dialecticos appellare.
tur non sensibus intueri.

I have discussed the C hrysolo ras-D ecem b rio translation of this fam ous Ficino (ed. cit., f. I64rb-vb): SO. Oportet igitur eum </tucunque decepturus sit
alium ipse minime decipiendus similitudinem et dissimilitudinem rerum exquisite
passage (from P la to ’s analogy of the “ divided lin e” ) elsew here (H an k in s dinoscere. ... Harum ego diuisionum collectionumque. o Phedre, amicus sum, ut
1987b) and also F icin o ’s version (H a n k in s 1986). T h e upshot of these et intelligendi et loquendi sim compos. Ac si quern alium posse arbitror turn
studies is to show that F icin o ’s re n d e rin g represents a clear advance in ad unum turn ad multa pro rerum natura respicere, huius a tergo tamquam dei
philosophical u n d e rsta n d in g over the earlier versions, not only of uestigia sequor. Atque eos qui id facere possunt, recte an ne contra cognominem
C hrysoloras-D ecem brio, b u t also of P. C . D ecem brio and A ntonio deus ipse nouit. Voco autem hactenus dialecticos.
C assirin o . Ficino did not, to m y k now ledge,7 m ake use either of P ier 9. Axiochus. A n instance of Ficino using a previous translation in a “ lex­
C andido D ecem b rio ’s or o f C a ssa rin o ’s translations of the Republic, ical” way is offered by his version of the Axiochus, or, as Ficino preferred
neither of which seems to have been know n in Florence d u rin g the Fif­ to call it, the De morte, for which he seems to have consulted the well-
teenth century. know n translation of C incius.
Cincius (BAV Chis. L V 165, f. 85r): Ut igitur in regimine Draconis et
8. Phaedrus. W e have already noticed F icin o ’s heavy dependence on Cleisthenis nihil mali patiebaris—principio enim non eras secus quern quip-
B ru n i’s translation of the Phaedrus. But B runi had translated (w ith om is­ piam mali esset—neque etiam post mortem fiet; tu enim non eris circa quern
sions) only up to 257C , leaving out som e of the m ost difficult parts of the mala existent. Haec itaque omnia deliramenta abiicias. Hoc siquidem con-
dialogue to u n d erstan d and tran slate (see vol. 1, p. 68f.). It was n atu ral, sidera: dissoluta semel coniunctione et animo in proprium locum firmato,
then, that Ficino should seek lor help elsew here, and he ap p aren tly found corpus relictum terrestre et sine ratione nequaquam homo est. Nos quidem
sumus animus, immortale animal mortali carcere detentum. (365D-366A)
it in B essarion’s Calumniator. T h e Calumniator quotes frequently, in L atin,
from m an y of P lato ’s w orks, b u t in two places Bessarion gives extended Ficino (Opera 2:1966): Ut enim in republica Draconis uel Clistems nihil tibi con-
excerpts from the Symposium ( I V .2 = M o h ler 2:481-485 = Smp. 200C -D , tigit mali—tu enim non eras circa quern esset malum—sic post mortem nullum
203D^ 205E-206A, 206E, 207D , 208A -E, 210E-212A) and the Phaedrus tibi aduersum—tu enim non eris circa quern esset malum. Omnes igitur huius-
(1.4 = M ohler 2:35-45 = Phdr. 261E -262C , 265C -267D ; other n um erous cemodi nugas abs te pelle, idque considera, quod dissoluto eo quod compositum
fuit, et anima in locum proprium abeunte, hoc quod restat, terrenum et irra-
shorter quotations in I V .2, p assim ).8 In the case of the Phaedrus, F icin o ’s

7 I have collated Hcino’s translation ol the Republic with earlier versions only for Book 3 These passages from Calumniator 1.4 were later printed separately: see Cat C, no. 4.
V and parts of Books 1, VI, and X. “ On Ficino’s attitude to Bessarion, see above, vol. 1, p. 310, note 122.
4/4 PART I APPE N D IC E S 475

j tionale corpus, homo nullo modo est. Nos enim sumus anima, immortale animal, 11. Ion. As we shall see in A pp. 20, in the m id-1460s the m in o r h u m an ist
in habitaculo mortali clausum. L orenzo Lippi d a Colle produced a translation of P lato ’s Ion which he
It fs w orth no tin g that, w here at the end o f the dialogue C incius had in ­ dedicated to Piero d e ’M edici. Lippi was a friend and correspondent of
Ficino, very m uch u n d e r his influence in the 1460s, and it seems that
serted the C h ristian d o ctrine o f rew ards an d punishm ents (see above,
voj. 1, p. 84), Ficino gives a m ore accurate rendition. Lippi allowed Ficino to m ake use of his version w hen the latter was
prep arin g his own rendering:
10. Calcidius. Ficino ow ned an d heavily an n o tated a copy of C alcid iu s’
Ion 541C-542A, tr. Lippi = Florence, BNC Magi. VIII 1443, ff. 166v-167r.
translation and com m en tary on the Timaeus, 10 so it w ould be surprising Ion. Quem Appollodorum. So. Ilium scilicet quern Athenienses, quom
if some echoes of C alcidius did not a p p e a r in his version. C alcid iu s’ v er­ hospes esset, imperatorem designauerunt atque Phanostanem Andrium et
sion, how ever, was extrem ely loose an d his L atinity strange to fifteenth- Eraclidem Colasomenium. Ion. Istos ciuitas [nostra del.}, quom hospites es-
century ears, so that F icin o ’s use of the earlier version was confined to 5 sent eo quod oratione florerent, pretura atque aliis magistratibus exornauit.
isolated phrases and unu su al words. ... Sed tu, o Ion, siquidem uera loqueris et scientia et arte potes Homerum
laudare, iniuria me afflcis et quia multa et pulchra Homeri es scire
Calcidius (ed. Waszink, p. 8): SO. Ita fiet. Cardo, nisi fallor, disputationis pollicitus, me decipis; oportet enim te ostendere quod haec non ea sunt
hesternae res erat publica, qualis mihi quibusque institutis et moribus quibus uehementer potes dicere. ... Si artificiosus es, quemadmodum
ciuium uideretur optima. TI. Nobis certe qui audiebamus, o Socrate, ad 10 n u < n > c referebam, iniuria me afflcis, quom multa Homeri pollicitus
arbitrium probata. ... SO. Tributo nempe ceteris quod cuique eximium a fueris ostendere et me decipias. Si uero artificiosus non es, sed quadam
natura datum est solis his qui pro salute omnium bella tractarent unum hoc diuina sorte furore correptus, quom nihil Homeri scias, multa et pulchra
munus iniunximus protegendae ciuitatis uel adversum externos vel adver- de hoc poeta recenses, sicuti tibi referebam, non facis mihi iniuriam. Elige
sum intestinos ac domesticos hostes, mitibus quidem iudiciis erga oboe- utrum malis homo iniquius an diuinus appellari.
dientes utpote consanguineos naturaque amicos, asperis autem contra
armatas acies in congressionibus Martiis. ... At vero hac educatione altis
auri argentique et supellectilis ceterae possessionem cuiusque propriam 8 oportet] 8ei<; scr. recc. : Set a’ TW (Burnet)
nullam esse aut existimari licere praediximus, sed sola mercede contentos,
exhibentibus quorum salutem tuerentur, uti communiter tanta, quae satis
sit occupatis erga custodiam communis salutis et a cetera functione operis Ibid., tr. Ficino = Opera 1491, ff. 61 vb-63ra: Ion. Quem Apollodorum? So. Il­
cessantibus. ... Haec quoque facilia memoratu et a nobis retinentur optime. ium scilicet quem saepe Athenienses, quamuis hospes esset, imperatorem delegerunt,
(Tim. 17C-18D) et Pkanosthenem Andrium et Heraclidem Clasomenium quos haec ciuitas, licet
peregrinos, quia uiri praestantes habentur, praetura et aliis magistratibus or-
Ficino (edn. cit., f. 252r.): SO. Faciam equidem. Summa disputationis hesteme 5 nat. ... Sed tu, o Ion, siquidem uera praedicas et scientia arteque potes Homerum
erat res publica qualis mihi et ex qualibus viris optima posse fieri videretur. TI. laudare, iniuria me afficis, quippe qui professus multa et pulchra Homeri scire te-
Nobis certe omnibus ualde probata sunt, o Socrates, que dixisti. ... SO. Cum que ostensurum mihi pollicitus, me nunc decipis ac permultum abest ut osten-
vero cuique quod pro nature instinctu precipue suum est et singula tantum das siquidem nec quae sint ista quorum peritus es. ... Si enim arte tibi hoc
singulis artibus officia tribueremus; illis quoque quos pre ceteris bella inest, quemadmodum nunc dixi, pollicitusque exponere, decipis certe in-
gerere oporteret id unum dumtaxat protegende scilicet ciuitatis munus iniunximus 10 iustus es, meque iniuria afficis. Sin autem cares arte et sorte quadam diuina ab
et adversus externos hostes et aduersus ciues rei publicae eversores, ita ut erga Homero raptus, cum nihil intelligas, multa et pulchra circa poetam hunc dicis,
subiectos tamquam natura amicos mites sint, contra hostes vero in prelio ut ego de te iudicabam, non facis iniuriam. Elige utrum mauis iniustus homo
ferocissimi. ... Ita educatos homines neque aurum neque argentum neque an diuinus potius appellare.
aliud quicquam proprium aut habere aut putare statuimus sed tanquam
adiutores publicosque ministros sola mercede contentos esse tanta ab his quod
tuentur exhibita quanta moderate uiventibus sufficere videatur, stipendio 5 praetura] praeterea ed.: axpaxr\yi<x<; graece
preterea publico in commune uti uoluimus et ad communem inter se vic-
tum impendere ut ceteris posthabitis omnibus solius virtutis et custodie H ere as elsewhere Ficino has clearly m ade some use of L ip p i’s version,
curam habeat. ... Hec quoque memoratu facilia sunt.
b u t he has thoroughly transform ed an obscure and incom petent ren d er­
ing into an accurate and readable one. H e corrects L ip p i’s m isreading
of the idiom ott oc£tot Xoyou etat (L ippi: “ eo quod oratione flo reren t” ) and
Cat. A, no. 169; see also Gentile in Moslra, pp. 7-8, no. 6. conjectures Sets for the senseless Set <s of his m an u scrip t. H e replaces
 476 PART I APPENDICES 477

several words and phrases left out by L ippi and m akes the whole flow Sermonibusque lectis ualde parum reliquum fuisse quando se intrasse in
sm oothly in L atin. domum una cum Parmenide, Pithodorus aiebat, secumque Aristotilem, qui
de triginta uiris unus fuit, et pauca quedam audisse que restabant, quamuis
prius a Zenone [audiuit canc. ] omnia percepisse.
12. Parmenides. Finally, a case w here Ficino has consulted not one, but
two previous versions in p rep arin g his ow n rendering. It w'as noted in Parmenides, 127B-C, trans. Ficino (Opera 1491, f. 22vb)
App. 11 that G eorge of T reb izo n d him self consulted W illiam of
Dixit ergo Antiphon Pythodorum enarrasse ... Zenonem uero annos paene
M oerbeke’s translation in ad dition to the G reek text, though in borrow ­ quadraginta natum, procero insuper et grato corporis habitu. Parmenidisque
ing from it he em bellished in accordance with hum anist taste the gross familiarem. Diuertisse autem illos ait apud Pythodorum extra moenia in Ceramico,
Latinitv ol the m edieval version. Ficino seems to have w orked back and quo etiam aduentasse Socratem aliosque cum Socrate plurimos, scripta Zenonis
forth between the G reek and T re b iz o n d ’s version, consulting M oerbeke audire cupientes—nam tunc primum ab illis in earn urbem inuecta—. Socratem
on a few occasions when G eorge fell into obscurity or e r r o r .11 uero eo tempore admodum iuuenem extitisse. Legisse autem illis Zenonem ip­
sum, Parmenidem enim forte extra domum fuisse. Ac parum superluisse legen-
Parmenides, 127B-C, trans. Moerbeke (CPMA 3: 5-6)12 dum quando se intrasse domum una cum Parmenide et Aristotele, qui de triginta
uiris unus fuit, Pythodorus aiebat: unde pauca quae legenda restabant audisse,
Inquit autem Antifon dicere Pythodorum ... Zenonem autem prope
uerumtamen a Zenone prius omnia percepisse.
quadraginta tunc esse, bene longum autem et gradosum videre, et dici ip-
sum pedica Parmenidis fuisse. Residere autem ipsos inquit apud In this passage Ficino is clearly dependent on T reb izo n d and not on
Pythodorum extra parietem in Tegulario; ibi itaque et pervenisse
M oerbeke. H is translation exhibits greater clarity and better Latinitv,
Socratemque et alios aliquos cum ipso multos, desiderantes audire Zenonis
litteras—tunc enim ipsas primo ab illis delatas esse—, Socratem autem esse though it is generally less literal than T re b iz o n d ’s. Ficino converts T re b i­
tunc valde iuvenem. Relegere igitur ipsis Zenonem ipsum, Parmenidem z o n d ’s gloss “ A th en as” into ” in earn u rb e m ” and bow dlerizes (inten­
autem fortuito extra entem; et esse valde modicum adhuc residuum ser- tionally?) the assertion that Zeno had been P arm en id es' catam ite;
monum qui legebantur, quando ipseque superingredi inquit Pythodorus T reb izo n d translates, “ and it was said that he had surrendered his
extra et Parmenidem cum ipso et Aristotelem triginta annorum entem, et virginity to P a rm e n id e s.” Elsewhere, especially in the m ore abstruse
parva quedam adhuc superaudire litterarum; non solum ipseque, sed et
prius audivisse Zenonem. m etaphysical passages where G eorge had often nodded, it is evident that
Ficino looked to M o erb ek e’s translation for an alternative ren d erin g :13*
Parmenides, 127B-C, trans. Trebizond (ms. cit., f. 64v)
Parmenides 127E-128B
Dixitque solitum esse Pythodorum dicere ... Zenonem uero quadraginta
Flax;, cpavai, a) Ziqvcov, xouxo Xeyeu;; d noXXa eaxi xa ovxa, ux; apa Sei auxa opoia
prope annos natum fuisse, longum et gratiosum speciem, dicebaturque xe eivai xai avopoia, xouxo 8e Sr] aSuvaxov- ouxe yap xa avopoia opoia ouxe xa
florem etatis Parmenidi prebuisse [amatus fuerit ex corr. Bessanoms}. Dixit
opoia avopoia oiov xe eivai; ouy ouxco Xeyeis;—Ouxa>, tpavai xov
autem ipsos diuertisse apud ipsum Pithodorum extra pomeria [menia ex
giqvoova.—Ouxouv ei aSuvaxov xa xe avopoia opoia eivai xai xa opoia avopoia,
cQrr. ] in Ceramico, et eo peruenisse Socratem aliosque complures cum aSuvaxov Sr) xai xoXXa eivai- d yap 7ioXXa eiY), Tedcayoi av xa aSuvaxa. apa xouxo
Spcrate cupientes scripta Zenonis audire. Tunc enim primum ab illis
eaxiv o [SouXovxai aou oi Xoyoi ... au pev yap ev xoi? zroiripaaiv ev <pf]<; eivai xo
Athenas fuisse delata et fuisse tunc Socratem iuuenem ualde. Legere
rrav, xai xouxcov xsxpripia ^apeyr) xaXtoi; xe [ye 7] xai eu- oSe Se au ou -oXXa
autem eis Zenonem ipsum, Parmenidem uero extra domum forte fuisse. (fqaiv eivai, xexpripia Se xai auxo<; rcap^oXXa xai TtappeyeGr) Teapexexai.

Trans. William of Moerbeke (CPMA 3: 6)

11 Gentile (1987), pp. 61-62, note 31, writes “ Mi pare che non si possa escludere “ Quomodo,” dicere, “ o Zenon, hoc dicis, ‘Si multa sunt que entia,’ ut
1 eventualita di una conoscenza di questa traduzione [Trebizond’sj da parte del Ficino,
dal mpmento che vi sono indubbie corrispondenze letterali tra le due versioni. Non va
ergo ‘oportet ipsa similiaque esse et dissimilia; hoc autem utique im-
tuttavih dimenticata una loro possibile fonte comune, vale a dire la traduzione parziale possibile; neque enim que dissimilia similia neque similia dissimilia
del Paimem de ... conservata nei lemmi del commento di Proclo volto in latino da possibile est esse?’ Non sic dicis?” —"Sic,” dicere Zenonem.—“ Igitur 'si
Guglielmo di Moerbeke. It is no surprise that Ficino used Moerbeke’s translation of impossibilia que dissimilia similia esse et que similia dissimilia, impossibile
the Parmenides, as C. Steel has recently established that Ficino s 1496 commentary on the utique et multa esse; si enim multa sint, patientur utique impossibilia ?
/ armenules shows some dependence on Moerbeke's translation of Proclus’ commentary;
see below, App. 19.
'■ Apparent borrowings from Moerbeke’s translation are indicated in boldface, from
...I • _!____l ’ • • . _ 1•
The mistakes in George’s rendering of this passage are discussed in App. 11.

ri«!»w»nr fa Ml! HIMl»»«u»n

 478 PART I
APPEN D IC ES 479

Ergo hoc est quod volunt sermones” ... “ Tu quidem enim in poematibus B. Later Revisions
unum dixisti esse quod omne, et horum argumenta exhibis pulchreque et
T h e m aking of F icino’s Platonis opera omnia of 1484, how ever, is only one
bene; hie autem rursum non multa ait esse, argumenta autem et ipse valde
muJta et valde magna exhibit.” side of the story. O n the other side we have the w ork of revision and
recollation done by F icin o ’s editors and prin ters th ro u g h o u t the sixteenth
Trans. George of Trebizond (MS cit., ff. 64v-65r) century, especially Sim on G ry naeus, A ntoine V incente, and E tienne
Quopacto, Zeno, id dicis? si m ulta sunt entia, quod necesse sit ipsa T rem b lay . T h e Platonis opera omnia in the hands of scholars from the
sim ilia et dissim ilia esse, idque esse im possibile. Nam nec dissimilia seventeenth to the end of the nineteenth century should in fact be seen
similia esse nec similia dissimilia esse possibile esse. Nonne sic dicis?—Sic, as the Final product in a process of textual evolution beg in n in g with a n ti­
Zeno respondit.—Ergo, inquit Socrates, si im possibile est dissim ilia q u ity an d the M iddle Ages and concluding only in the last decade of the
similia esse, et sim ilia dissim ilia, im possibile [certe canc.] etiam est
m ulta esse. Nam si m ulta sint, hec im possibilia consecuntur. Num id est, sixteenth. F icino’s labors form ed indeed the m ost im p o rtan t link in this
o Zeno, quod he tue rationes uolunt? .... T u enim in poemate tuo totum chain, b u t the final achievem ent was the w ork of a least a dozen scholars
uniuersum unum dicis esse, et horum uestigia probe affers, hie uero non from C icero, C alcidius and M oerbeke to E tienne T rem b lay . By the end
multa esse asserit, et uestigia signaque adducit m ulta atque magna. of the sixteenth century, indeed, “ F icino’s” translation of the dialogues,
already itself in great p art a revision of previous w ork, had become a
Trans. Marsilio Ficino (edn. cit., f. 22vb)
patchw ork to which F icino’s own contribution, in a good m any passages,
Quomodo id diets, o Zenon: quod si multa sunt ea que sunt, oportet ilia was relatively small.
similia atque dissimilia esse, hoc autem esse impossibile. Neque enim dissimilia
A lthough nearly every im p rin t am ong the thirty or so printings of
similia neque similia dissimilia esse posse. Nonne sic dicis?—Sic, certe, respon-
disse Zenonem. Nonne si impossibile est, dissimilia similia esse et similia F icino’s Platonis opera omnia in the sixteenth century prom ises on its title
dissimilia impossibile etiam multa esse. Nam si multa essent, impossibilia ista con- page to have incorporated new corrections or even to be based on new
tingerent? Num hoc est quod sermones tui uolunt? .... Nam tu in study of the G reek m anuscripts, a fairly extensive collation has disclosed
poem atibus unum ais esse ipsum omne, atque huius argum enta quam only three real revisions of F icino’s text in the sixteenth c e n tu ry .16 T he
puicherrima14 exhibes, hie vero rursus non multa esse ait, coniecturasque et
ipse permultas ac ualidas praebet. first of these was m ade by Sim on G rynaeus or G ru en au s (1493-1541), a
P ro testan t h u m an ist, friend of E rasm us and Bude, hand-picked by
It should be noted that Ficino was probably m aking use o f the same O ecolam padius to be professor of G reek at Basel in 1529. G rynaeus p u b ­
autog rap h m an u scrip t of T re b iz o n d ’s version w ith corrections in the lished with Froben a revised edition of F icino’s version in 1532, two years
hapd of Bessarion w hich survives in V o lterra. For in his borrow ings from before his own edition of the Platonis opera omnia in G reek was published
the earlier version, Ficino som etim es followed G eorge, som etim es by V a ld e ru s.17 In his p reface,18 after expressing his ad m iratio n for Ficino
Besisarion.15 It is barely possible th at he used a copy of it, b u t on that and his desire to confound the (C atholic) rhetoricians and sophisters of
hypothesis we would have to assum e a highly u nsystem atic scribe who in ­
serted some but not all of B essario n ’s corrections in his copy. 16 I have collated the first 300 words of each dialogue in every printing of the P la to n is
o p e r a o m n ia before 1600. I have not collated the text of the m any quarto schoolbooks con­
taining Ficino’s translation, with the exception of C at. B, no. 39. C at. F, the index of
incipits, gives some impression of the extent of the revisions.
17 There is no modem monograph on G rynaeus, but see the excellent life and
14 This rendering shows that Ficino was consulting also his Greek M S, a member of bibliography by P. G. Bietenholz in C o n te m p o r a r ie s o f E r a s m u s , ed. P. G. Bietenholz
the ” T ” fam ily, which has xaXta? y t here for xaXdx; te. (Toronto, 1986), 2: 142-146. In addition to the works cited by Bietenholz there is much
15 Examples where Ficino follows Bessarion rather than George: 127C1 £xto<;mxoo?: m anuscript and archival m aterial on Grynaeus at the Universitaetsbibliothek in Basel.
extra p om eria perperam Treb., extra moenia Bess., Fic.-, 128A4 MavOavco: Colligo Treb., In- Besides numerous unpublished letters, there is a fam ily z ib a ld o n e , M S Ki. Ar. 43, parts
telligo Bess., Fic.\ 132D6 xa0’ oaov: quantum Treb., quatenus Bess., Fic.\ 137A1 to too 1-4; documents in M S Ki. Ar. G. 1.7, pt. I, fols. 55, 59, 60, 64, 67; D i c t a t a in P o r p h y r iu m
et C a te g o r ia s A r is to te lis , M S F. IV .27; D ic t a ta in L i b r . A n s t o t e l i s Ilept epprivtia? (a. 1536), M S
If}u;|c6tou imrou TtettovOevai: hibicio equo passione sustinere Treb. hibicio equo simile quod
pati Bess., in id quod passus est Ibicius equus Fic.', 137D4 ei p.r)8ev eyet pipo<;: si neque F. V I. 10; C o m m e n ta n u s in L i b r u m V I I I T o p ic o r u m A n s t o t e l i s , M S F .IX .1 3 ; P ra e le c tio n e s in
partem Treb., si nullam habet partem Bess., F ic. ; 137E1 a r p o y y C k o v : globosum Treb., A r is to te lis R h e to r ic a , M S F .I X .l; E x e r c ita tio n e s R k e to n c a e in Q u i n t ili a n i l i b r i I V c a p u t iv , M S

rotundum Bess., F ic.. — Examples where Ficino follows George rather than Bessarion: F. IX . 13; C o m m e n ta n i in R h e to r ic a H e r m o g e m s la tin e , D ic t a ta in H e r m o g e m s lib e llu m d e id e is (a.
130A6 fiuSidv: subridebat Treb., subrisisse F ic. , arridebant Bess. ; 135C9 xocXove pulchrum 1540), M S F .IX .1 3 .
Treb., Fic., honestum Bess ', 137D5 exot: habebit Treb., Fic., haberet Bess. 18 Text 82.
 480 PART I A PPE N D IC E S 481

his age by m aking P la to ’s solid doctrin e m ore widely available, G rvnaeus some m odern is preferable to T u lly ’s v ersio n .’’ E xception was m ade for
gives us the justificatio n for revision, nam ely, that he has collated the C ic e ro ’s partial version of the Timaeus, which was inserted whole at the
translation anew with an exemplar graecum, which is not, as has som etim es end of the volum e ra th e r than substituted for F icino’s version. V incente
been thought, the O xford m an u scrip t he collated for his G reek edition of also added the spurious Letter X I I I to the collection of P la to ’s letters and
1534,19 but ra th e r M arcus M u s u ru s ’ G reek edition p rin ted by A ldus in a translation by Sebastiano C o rrad i of the six spurious dialogues left u n ­
1513- Since F icin o ’s G reek m an u scrip t and the A ldine StopBwae; are translated by F icino.24
cousins in the kT ’ fam ily of Plato m anuscripts, we m ay conjecture that V incente had revised, not the original translation of Ficino, but rather
G rv n a e u s’ extensive revisions o f Ficino reflect less the fo rm er’s the revised version of G ry naeus. T h e next redactor of F icino’s Plato,
dissatisfaction with F icino’s G reek text than distaste for his L atin style. E tienne T rem b lay (1556-1597), took the process one step further, in­
T h is supposition is stren g th en ed by collating a few pages of G ry n a e u s’ troducing still m ore changes into the G ryn aeu s-V in cen te text of the
revised version with the earlier text, w hich reveals the fo rm e r’s efforts to dialogues in his own edition printed at G eneva in 1592.25 T rem blay, a
bring F icino’s L atin m ore in line w ith classical usage. professor o f philosophy at the G enevan A cad em y ,2627.h a d strong reserva­
T h e next revision of F icin o ’s text was p rin ted by the Lyonnais tions about the Plato translation of Je a n de Serres published in 1578 by
publisher A ntoine V incente, who in 1557 produced a new edition o f the Plenri II E stienne. T h o u g h both of these m en w ere friends and fellow-
Platonis opera omnia.20 In the preface to the re a d e r,21 V incente claim ed that C alvinists, T rem b lay felt that their work had suffered from the undue
he had been provided by a certain learned m an w ith a copy of the haste w ith w hich it had been published, and concluded th at the best hope
G ry n aeu s edition of Plato w hich the learned m an h ad collated w ith a for an accurate translation was to revise the text of Ficino. T h e real
Graecum exemplar22 and filled with castigationes. Shocked and saddened, problem , he believed, was that the m odern age could boast no translator
V incente reproved his fellow ty p ographers for claim ing “ in foot-high let­ like C icero, who jo in ed m astery o i sermo latinus to an u n d erstan d in g of
te rs’" that they had collated the text w ith a G reek exem plar and for a b u s­ philosophia platonica.21 But in the absence of such a happy conjuncture, the
ing the good fam e of Sim on G ry n aeu s by plastering his nam e over their next best case is that of the m an who und erstan d s P lato, even if his ex­
title pages. (T h ere had been eight of these im m oral printings of the pressive pow ers are not equal to P lato ’s Jo v ian eloquence. T his is the
G rynaeus edition betw een 1532 an d 1557, one of them p rin ted for case of Ficino whose u n d erstan d in g of Plato is so w onderful that one
V incente him self.23) V incente u n d erto o k to produce a new revision o f the m ight alm ost believe the pagan m adness of m etem psychosis and think
Ficino translation using the ano n y m o u s scholar’s an n o tated copy to fill Plato had retu rn ed to life again in F icino’s body. T h e great objection to
lacunae, to em end co rru p tio n s o f the L atin , an d to correct M arsilio ’s oc­ F icin o ’s version is his style, w hich fell far short of P latonic eloquence.
casional m istranslations o f the G reek. T h e sam e learn ed m an h ad also T rem b lay therefore undertakes, with due caution and reverence, to join
noted in the m argins o f his copy passages of Plato which C icero had his efforts to those of previous revisors in im proving F icino’s style and
translated in his Philosophica an d Rhetorical V incente inserted these accuracy.
passages directly into the tran slatio n in place of F icino’s version. “ In do­ It seems that T rem b lay had another agenda in view as well, for he tells
ing this we ju d g e that no one will think him self any the worse off, unless us th at, in acceding to the wishes o f the publisher for a shorter text, he
perchance there is som eone who is looking for a tran slato r b etter and has cut out all the deliramenta allegorica in the com m entaries which Ficino
m ore learned th an C icero, o r som eone w ho thinks a tran slatio n done by
24 See above, p. 464. On Corradi, see Cat. E, no. 7. The idea that Cicero was the
ideal translator of philosophical works goes back at least to Quintilian, but was populariz­
19 Oxford, Corpus Christi College MS CCC 96. On Grynaeus’ use of this manuscript, ed in the sixteenth century by Robert Estienne and Joachim Perion.
see Proclus, In R em p., ed. W. Kroll (Leipzig, 1899), l:v and Proclus. In T im ., ed. E. 25 Cat. B, no. 141.
Diehl (Leipzig, 1903), l:xv. Grvnaeus’ trip to England took place in 1531, probably alter 2S See C. Bourgeaud, H i s t o i r e d e I ’ U n i v e r s i t e d e G e n e v e , 1 : T A c a d e m i e d e C a l v i n , 1 5 5 9 - 1 7 9 8
he had completed most of the work for his revision of Ficino. (Geneva, 1900), ad indices; and G. Toepke, D i e M a l n k e l d e r U n i v . H e i d e l b e r g (Heidelberg,
Cat. B, no. 96. 1884-1916), 2: 70. Tremblay matriculated in 1574 at Heidelberg and was a correspon­
21 Text 84. dent of Casaubon (see I s a a c i C a s a u b o m e p i s t o l a e , no. 109), the son-in-law of Estienne. A
This was probably Marcus Hopper’s 1554 edition of the Greek text, published by Genevan minister, Tremblay was pressed into service at the Academy after the school
Heinrich Petri. On Hopper see D i e Amerbach Korrespondenz, ed. A. Hartmann, voi. 6 closed in 1586/87, having been recommended to the post by Casaubon. He is know-n to
(Basel, 1967), p. 1547 (Ep. 2923), note 4. have lectured on the logic of Aristotle (in the compilation bv Pachymeres).
' Cat. B, no. 71. 27 Text 88.
482 PART I

had un fo rtu n ately im bibed from the N eoplatonic trad itio n . As an ex am ­

ple, he m entions F icino’s identification of the “ offspring of the G o o d ”
jn Book V I of the Republic w ith Je su s C h rist. T rem b lay as a C alvinist APPENDIX 19
naturally found such syncretism shocking. F rom o th er rem arks he passes
we m ay guess that he found F icin o ’s N eoplatonic in terp retatio n of Plato T H E D A T E S O F F IC IN O ’S
inharm onious w ith the simpliste u n d e rsta n d in g of the P latonic dialogues A R G U M E N T S A N D C O M M E N T A R IE S
fashionable in P ro testan t circles, ow ing to the influence o f M elanchthon
and J e a n de S e rre s.28 T h e purpose of the present appendix is to sum m arize w hat is currently
know n o r believed w ith regard to the dating of Ficino’s various exegetical
labors on the P latonic dialogues.
28 See Tigerstedt, p. 3 If. I am preparing a study of the “ Protestant” interpretations T h e earliest dialogue to engage his attention was alm ost certainly the
of Plato in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
Timaeus, w hich he w ould have know n in C alcid iu s’ p artial translation.
C alcid iu s’ unfinished com m entary on the dialogue he transcribed and
glossed in his ow n han d in a m anuscript w ritten in 1454.1 T w o years later
he com posed, at the u rging of Cristoforo L andino, his Institutionum ad
Platonicam disciplinam libri I V which was apparently a virtual com m entary
on the Timaeus based entirely on Latin sources.2 A fter Ficino had im ­
proved his G reek, he cam e to regard his earlier w ork as obsolete, and it
is unlikely th at the Institutiones have m uch in com m on with the Timaeus
co m m en tary p rep ared shortly before 1484 for inclusion in the Platonis
opera omnia.34T h e w ork was expanded again betw een N ovem ber of 1492
and the b eg inning of 1493,* and an “ A ppendix co m m entariorum in
T im a e u m P latonis, quae distinctiones et sum m as capitum com plectitur”
was added for the 1496 ed itio n .5
A draft of the argumenta w hich appeared in the 1484 edition was pro b a­
bly com pleted already in the 1460s, and m ay be based in p art on lectures
or hom ilies th at Ficino was giving to his F lorentine disciples in that
period. W e know at least that the first ten argumenta w ere com plete by
C o sim o ’s death in 1464,6 and K risteller’s contention th at the rest of the
arg u m en ts w ere com posed contem poraneously w ith the tran slatio n s7 has
been b orne out by later investigations.8 T h e cross references in them to
later works of Ficino, which references led D ella T o rre and others to

1 Cat. A, no. 169.

2 Suppl. 1:CLXIII-CLXIV. Ficino may have known some Greek at this date (see App.
17, note 8) but not enough to work confidently with difficult Greek sources.
3 Suppl. 1:CXX-CXXI.
4 Ibid.
5 See Allen (1987), p. 402 and note.
6 Kristeller (1966), passim.
7 Suppl. 1:CXVI-CXVII.
8 Allen (1981), pp. 17-18.
484 PART I
A PPEN D ICES 485
assign them a date in the 1470s, are likely to have been added when the and added eight further chapters, giving the whole the title Argumentum
arg u m en ts were being p rep ared for the p re ss.9 et comrnentaria Marsilii Ficini in Phedrum. H e also added w hat he called
An au to g rap h m an u scrip t of the Symposium com m entary or De amore “ C o m m en tu m cum sum m is cap itu lo ru m ” w hich, as the title suggests,
(V at. lat. 7705) dated to J u ly of 1469 has led some investigators to con­ was a kind of sum m ary and ru n n in g co m m entary on the text. T he ex­
clude that 1469 m ust also be the date of c o m p o sitio n .10 But as Sebastiano p an d ed arg u m en t and “ C o m m e n tu m ” were p rin ted together in the 1496
G entile has recently show n, that m an u scrip t, though au to g rap h , is not Comrnentaria. 14
in fact the archetype but a copy m ade by Ficino as an act of friendship T h e Parmenides com m entary was begun in N ovem ber of 1492 and
from a later d r a f t." T h e original draft was apparently changed in the finished by A ugust of 1493, as we know from letters to Filippo V alori and
hopes of im proving the im age of the youthful L orenzo d e ’ M edici ( “ l ’in- G erm ain de G a n a y .15 M ichael Allen has shown in a recent article that
serzione di L orenzo nel capitolo in tro d u ttiv o possa rivestire un recondito the unaccustom ed speed of F icino’s com position was probably owing to
intento p ro p ag an d istico ” ). T h e w ork is not likely, how ever, to have been his desire to answ er P ico’s De ente et uno, which in its second paragraph
com posed m uch before 1469, as Ficino only becam e acquainted with had denied the P lotinian/P roclan interp retatio n of-the Parmenides, long
C avalcanti in 1467. G entile also shows that F icino’s w ork of revision on the cornerstone of F icino’s in terpretation of Plato as well as of his own
the De amore continued well into the 1470s and perhaps even into the m etap h y sics.16
1480s. D edication copies w ere sent to C av alcanti, C ard in al Piccolom ini, F icin o ’s last two com m entaries, the arg u m en t an d Distinctions to the
and J a n u s P an n on iu s in 1469. Sophist, and the com m entary on the “ Platonic n u m b e r” in Republic VIII,
T h e m assive, unfinished Philebus co m m en tary was based on lectures were also late works. T h e Sophist m aterials were assem bled som etim e
given som etim e d u rin g the rule of Piero d e ’ M edici, il gottoso, that is, after the Parmenides com m entary and the revisions to the Timaeus were
som etim e betw een A ugust of 1464 and D ecem ber of 1469. Ficino p ro b a­ finished, b ut before the sum m er of 1494. T h e com m entary on the
bly began to work his lecture m aterial into a com m entary soon after com ­ “ Platonic n u m b e r” does not appear in the catalogue of F icino’s works
pleting the Symposium co m m en tary (1468/69) but before his w ork on the dated in 1493, so it m ust have been com posed som etim e betw een that
Platonic Theology and the De Christiana religione had begun in earnest date and the terminus ante quern of 1496.17
(1469-1474). T h is first version was not p rin ted with the 1484 translation, Of this body of m aterial, only the Philebus, Phaedrus, Symposium and
but was revised ju st before F eb ru ary 1491,12 and fu rth er revised Sophist com m entaries have received m odern ed itio n s.18 It should be borne
som etim e before the edition of 1496. Ficino had in his original version in m ind as well that F icino’s exegetical labors on the text of Plato were
divided the text into twelve sections, b u t his com m entary as it was not confined to his form al com m entaries, and th at the Platonic Theology
printed in the 1496 Comrnentaria deals only with the first five of these an d the Letters in p articu lar som etim es contain fuller treatm en ts of m at­
sections. ters discussed briefly in the com m entaries proper.
Ficino began to com m ent on the Phaedrus even before he learned to
read G reek, using the frag m en t of the dialogue B runi had translated in
1424.13 But this letter has little in com m on w ith the com m entary on the 14 Allen (1981), pp. 15-21.
Phaedrus Ficino later p rin ted in his Comrnentaria in Platonem of 1496. T he 15 S u ppl.. 1:CXX; Comm, in Conv., ed. Marcel, pp. 531-533.
nucleus of the later co m m en tary was the original arg u m en t to the 16 Allen (1986), p. 429 et passim.
17 Suppl. l-.CXX.
Phaedrus Ficino com posed betw een A pril of 1466 and N ovem ber of 1468, 18 M. J. B. Allen has prepared a critical edition of the Sophist commentary in a forth­
and tt was this arg u m en t th at was rep rin ted in the 1484 Opera omnia. In coming book Icastes: Marsilio Ficino s Interpretation of Plato ’v Sophist.
1493, probably, Ficino divided the original arg u m en t into three chapters

" See vol. 1, p. 3 18n.

See Ficino, C o m m , in C o n v . , ed. Marcel, p. Ilf.
11 ''Per la scoria del lesto del C o m m e n t a n u m m C o n m v iu m di Marsilio Ficino.
R i n a s C i n w n l o . scr. ‘2. 21 (1981): 8-27.
.Mien (1975), pp. 18-14.
M (jientile (1983), passim.
 A P PE N D IC E S 487

L ip p i’s translation of the Ion had no such success, surviving in but a

single au to g rap h m an u scrip t. It was the second of his translations, and
APPENDIX 20 m ust have been m ade near the end of his stu d en t days, w hen he would
have been seeking a p atro n to help him begin his academ ic career. T he
L O R E N Z O L I P P I ’S T R A N S L A T IO N O F T H E IO N dedication to Piero d e ’M edici m akes it clear that C osim o was now dead,
so the version can be dated betw een A ugust 1464 and P ie ro ’s own death
Lorenzo di G iovan Pietro L ippi da Colle V aldelsa (ca. 1442-1485) was in D ecem ber 1469. T h e epithet “ invictissim us” applied to Piero seems
a M edici client and a m em b er of F icin o ’s circle w ith w hom Ficino ex­ to suggest a date rath er later in th at period, after the conspiracy and war
changed som e cordial letters; Ficino p robably m et him th rough his of 1467-68. But L ip p i’s version, as was noted in A pp. 18, was used by
teacher, L uca di A ntonio da San G im ig n an o, w ith w hom L ippi also Ficino in p rep arin g his own translation, and so m ust have been m ade
studied (see Iter 1:163). L ippi afterw ards becam e one of the First pro­ before F icino’s own translation was com pleted (before A pril 1466). It is
fessors of g ram m ar and rhetoric at the Studium of Pisa w hen that in stitu ­ of course possible that Lippi translated the w ork before 1466, and only
tion was refounded by L orenzo d e ’M edici in 1472/3. It was Lippi, dedicated it to Piero tow ards the end of the sam e decade.
indeed, who gave the in au g u ral address on that o ccasion.1 T h e speech, L ip p i’s dedicatory letter also tells us w hat it was about the Ion that led
together with a q u an tity of verse— satires, distichs, epigram s and him to translate it. As an aspiring poet and a devotee of Ficinian
proverbs— , some letters, and several translations constitutes the whole P latonism , Lippi found the doctrine of the p o e t’s divine inspiration
of L ip p i’s know n works; his m ost fam ous w ork was his translation of O p- peculiarly attractive. H e surely w ould have been acquainted with
p ia n ’s Halieutica, which was p rin ted several tim es.2 F icin o ’s epistolatory com m entary “ De divino fu ro re ’’ of 1457, based on
B ru n i’s translation of the Phaedrus.35*10 A nd he m ust have known that his
1 On Lippi see V. R. Giustiniani, “ L’orazione di Lorenzo Lippi per l’apertura prospective patro n , Piero, had also some interest in Ficino’s Platonic
dell’Universita di Pisa,” Rinascimento , ser. 2, 4 (1964): 265-284; much information on revival.
Lippi's university career is also scattered in Verde, 2: 424-438 and 4: 75-76, 92-93,
197-199, 237, 272-273, 306, 379-380, 586-595; for his connection with Ficino and Floren­ Lorenzo of Colle to the eminent Piero de’Medici. I had been discussing
tine Platonism, see Della Torre, pp. 702-708. Lippi lectured on Horace’s Ars poetica, the poetic madness at the University with the remarkably learned youth An­
Aenetd, Juvenal and Persius. tonio Benivieni and my friend Dando and chanced to mention some
2 For Lippi’s verse, se e j. IJsewijn, ‘‘Laurentius Lippi Collensis, Satyrae ad Lauren- passages from Plato’s book “ On the Iliad.” Dando was so intrigued by the
tium Medicem,” Humanistica Lovamensia 27 (1978): 18-44. Some of his letters are pub­
lished in Verde, 2: 424-429; T. De Marinis and A. Perosa, Nuovi documenti per la storia
excellence of these passages that he urged me to translate the opuscule into
del Rinascimento (Florence, 1970), pp. 49-53. In addition to Oppian (for which see the Latin, notwithstanding my repeated refusals on grounds of the difficulty of
bibliography in Giustiniani, c it. , Lippi translated a sermon of Chrysostom (Verde 2:429), the work and my own limitations. For this reason, most learned and uncon­
Lucian’s flepi tou pf; paStcot; mcrceueiv rrj SiaPoXr) (De Marinis and Perosa, pp. 49-50), querable Piero, I translated the work from the Greek and dedicated it
Hesiod’s Works and Days , and two works of Isocrates. For his translations of Isocrates’
S'icodes and Ad Nicoclem , see L. Gualdo Rosa, ‘‘Le traduzioni latine dell’A Nicocle di 5 tus annus ex quo opusculum illud latinum feci; plurima enim ibi sunt vix hac aetate
Isocrate nel Quattrocento,” in Acta Conventus Neolatim Lovaniensis ... Louvain, 23-28 August digna, quae ego neque admitto neque probo; tamen ut tibi morem gererem et
1971, ed. J. IJsewijn and E. Kessler (Louvain, 1973), pp. 275-303, and eadem, Lafede satisfacerem tuae voluntati, recognoscerem et tristiori censura castigarem, nisi
nelld Paideia: Aspetti della jortuna europea di Isocrate net secoli X V e X V I (Rome, 1984), pp. 27, 'AXieuxixd mea me totum tenerent. Absolvi quartum librum, unicus restat. Ne
68. His translation of Hesiod (1469) is unknown and has apparently not survived, but quaeso intercipias hunc felicem scribendi cursum et hunc stili mei successum; in
is referred to in a hitherto unpublished letter in Florence, BNC Fondo Ginori Conti 29: 10 aliud tempus emendatione < m > Hesiodi differam et, si non alia causa, saltern ut
64c, item 7 (Carte Michelozzi), written by one of Lippi’s amanuenses, probably at his tuae satisfaciam voluntati. Interim permitte me ludere cum pisciculis meis.
dictation. I give this (rather charming) letter here as it documents Lippi’s work on Piscinarius sum, mi Nicholae, non agricola. Pisciculi salientes hami nasse tnaina,
Hesiod, gives further information about the dating of his version of Oppian, and il­ non marre, non bidentes, non ligones me delectant. Nam multo facilius et toto in
lustrates the relations between Lorenzo il Magnifico, his secretary Michelozzi, Poliziano, pectore regis loetitia est piscem calamis spectare ligatum atque reluctantem uel
and other literary men of the Medici circle. It is interesting to note that Lippi began work 15 lubrica terga mouentem quam pandas forti glebas confringere aratro atque operi in-
on Hesiod about the same time that Poliziano began his Homer translation. tentus rectos deducere sulcos. Vale. Kalendis Decembris < 1 4 7 5 > .”

“ Laurentius Lippius Nicholao Michelozzo salutem. Angelus noster, mi Nicolae, 5 p lu rim u m M S 12 trie n n e sic M S, pro -cpiatva 14 N a m m u lto facilius| M u lto lacilius linea tra h o piscem
petiuit a me tuo nomine interpretationem Hesiodi. Doleo, mi Nicholae, non posse re u in c tu m (a tq u e relu c ta n c tem uel lu b ric a terg a m o u e n te m del. aman.) (N a m s.s.) m u lta superciliis i ic
tibi obtemperare. Fst adhuc informa archetypa multa litura interrupta ut dam- M S 15 p a n d u s M S
nabarn et ut probabain aliquod carmen uel aliquant dictionem. Agitur insuper sex- 3 See Gentile (1983).
488 PART I

Specially to you. For I was devoted to your father Cosimo, that very wise
man, [to whom] I dedicated a Latin oration of Isocrates, the first-fruits and
exercises of my classroom studies. Since Cosimo with his usual kindness ap­
proved of them, I was encouraged to undertake greater things, and so offer
to you—the successor not only to your father’s riches and influence, but
also to the paternal and ancestral virtue—this divine little book of Plato’s,
as a commemoration for posterity of my love for you. So read carefully this
little book, a worthy commendation of that Homer who denied that one
could approach the fonts of poesy uninspired. And if you find anything
unhappy in its Latinity, please summon it back to the forum of Roman elo­
quence in accordance with your own taste.4
As both L ip p i’s G reek m an u scrip t and his philology w ere defective,
the translation tu rn ed out to be a ra th e r poor piece of w ork, and was al­
most im m ediately superseded by F icin o ’s far better rendering.

4 Text 63.

P A R T II

TEXTS
 D e ratione edendi pauca quaedam

P raefationes, epistulae, adnotationes, aliaque scripta quae hie e

codicibus m an u scriptis uulgaui p lerum que n unc p rim u m in lucem pro-
d eu n t. N o n n u lla autem tem poribus recentioribus iam edita quibus ra-
tionibus q u au e causa denuo susceperim edenda satis ap p arebit, ut
censeo, ex paucis ante, uel potius ex a p p a ra tu post singula appositis.
E quidem o m n ia pro uirili m ea cu rau i iuxta o p tim o ru m codicum fidem,
quae u tru m ex an tiq u itate an ex pro u en ien tia scribisue lib ro ru m m anet
facile agnoscas si codicum conferas elenchum alibi hoc in uolum ine
positum . Ad finem p raeterea quindecim praefationes adieci saeculo
decim o sexto im pressas, quo hae rarae aues, im m o rarissim ae— quasdam
dixerim m e cepisse strenue reluctantes— ad m anus e ru d ito ru m libentius
aduolent.
In om nibus fere scriptis litteraru m form a usus sum quam con-
stitu eru n t doctissim i redactores O xonienses ( Oxford Latin Dictionary,
im pr. O xonii an n o 1982). T em p o re enim re n a ta ru m litteraru m nulla fuit
ratio, nullaque form a scribendi quae certa ubique sem perque usitata fuit
(q u am q u am sunt qui id som niare u id en tu r), sed librarii suas quisque
uias secuti su n t, qui non solum in paginis, sed etiam in lineis uerba
eadem diuersis sub form is n o n n u m q u am p raebere facillim e se patiu n tu r.
N ec sane intellego q u am obrem quoue proposito quisquiliae nescio cuius
scribae (au t potius scribarum triu m uel q u a ttu o r in te r se quodam m odo
dissidentium ) seru an d ae atque in posteros trad en d ae sint. C u m tam en
aut m an u ipsius auctoris sit scriptus aliquis codex, au t unico in codice ali-
quis textus seruari u id eatu r, satius esse arb itra tu s sum u t u erb a sub istis
quae quidem in codice exaratae fuissent form is diligenter proferrem . In-
terpunctiones autem ac litterae m aiusculae uel m inusculae m eo iudicio
u b ique sunt positae. Lectiones ineptiores ut fere fit silentio praeterm isi.
V iris doctissim is Eugenio Rice et M artin o D avies qui collationes
q u o ru n d a m codicum m ihi hum anissim e co m m u n icau eru n t gratias
u eh em en ter ago. Item gratias debeo m agnas et V irginiae B row n, uxori
carissim ae, et Paulo K risteller, m agistro uere optim o, q u ia non paucis in
locis lectiones fideliores scienter m ihi pro p o su eru n t.

tester-
 TE X TS 493

26. EPISTULA DEDICATORIA IN VERSIONEM CRITONIS

27. Praefatio in uersionem libri platonici qui Axiochus inscribitur
C O N S P E C T U S S C R IP T O R U M P L A T O N IS
IN T E R P R E T A T IO N E M SA E C . X V IL L U S T R A N T IU M Franciscus Philelpkus

28. PRAEFATIO IN VERSIONEM EUTHYPHRONTIS

Leonardus Brunus Aretinus 29. VERSIO L ATINA TR IU M PLATONIS EPISTULARUM
1. Praefatio in versionem Phaedonis 30. EPISTULA DE IDEIS
2. Epistula 1.8 versionem Phaedonis comicans
3. EPISTULA MISSIONIS GUI LI ELM I FILLASTRE PHAEDONEM ET GORGIAM Augustinus Datus
COMITANS
4. PROOEMIUM EXJOANNIS DOGETAE EXAM INAT ORIO IN PHAEDONEM 31. PRAEFATIO IN VERSIONEM LIBRI QUI HALCYON DICITUR
5. DEDICATIO AUCTORIS EX IOANNIS DOGETAE EXAM I NAT O RIO IN
PHAEDONEM
Ubertus Decem bnus
6. Praefatio in versionem Gorgiae
7. Argumentum in Gorgiam 32. Hexametri aliquot Uberti librorum De re publica versionem comitantes
8. NOTAB I LI A LEONARDI ARETINI ET NICOLAI DE NICCOLIS IN GORGIAM 33. PROLOGI UBERTI DECEMBRII IN LIBROS DE RE PUBLICA VERSIO
9. Praefatio in versionem Phaedri PR IM ITIV A
10. ARGUMENTUM IN PHAEDRUM 34. EIUSDEM PROLOGI REDACTIO ALTERA A PETRO CANDIDO FACTA
11. ARGUM ENTUM IN APOLOGIAM SOCRATIS 35. UBERTI DECEMBRII ARGUM ENTULA IN SINGULOS LIBROS DE RE
12. ARGUMENTUM IN CRITONIS VERSIONEM PRIM ITIVAM PUBLICA
13. Argumentum in Critonem 36. Marginalia Guarini Veronensis in cod. eius libb. De republica exarata
14. Praefatio in versionem Epistolarum
15. Argumentum in Epistulas Petrus Candidus D ecem bnus
16. Epistula missionis Guilielmi Ficheti codici Platonis epistularum
praefixa. 37. Epistula missionis Francisci Pizolpassi codicibus De republica plerum-
17. EPISTULA JOANNIS CHOUARD AD EANDEM RESPONDENS que inserta
18. GUILIELMI BRICONNET EPISTOLA MISSIONIS CODICI PLATONIS 38. Petri Candidi et Humfredi ducis Gloucestrensis epistulae plerumque
DIALOGORUM PRAEFIXA codicibus librorum De republica praefixae
19. BERNARDINI DARDANI VERSUS HENDECASYLLABI IN CODICE PLATONIS 39. Petri Candidi praefatio in omnes libros De republica
EPISTULARUM EXARATI. 40. Petri Candidi prologus in librum secundum De republica
20. Baptistae Augustensis epistula missionis Hartmanno Schedel inscripta 41. Petri Candidi prologus in librum tertium eiusdem
Opera varia Platonis comitans 42. Petri Candidi prologus in librum quartum eiusdem
21. Henrici Stolberger epistula missionis Hartmanno Schedel inscripta in 43. PETRI CANDIDI PROLOGUS IN LIBRUM Q U IN T U M EIUSDEM
eodem codice 44. PETRI CANDIDI BREVIS ADNOTAT IO AD LIBROS DECEM DE REPUBLICA •
45. PETRI CANDIDI PROLOGUS IN LIBRUM SEXTUM DE REPUBLICA
46. Petri Candidi prologus in librum septimum eiusdem
Cincius Romanus 47. Petri Candidi prologus in librum octauum eiusdem
22. Praefatio in librum qui Axiochus inscribitur 48. Petri Candidi prologus in librum nonum eiusdem
23. CINCII EPISTULA MISSIONIS AD QUENDAM VELLEIUM 49. PETRI CANDIDI PROLOGUS IN LIBRUM DECIMUM EIUSDEM
24. Praefatio in libellum De virtute 50. ARG UM ENTULA ET CAPITULA LIBRORUM DECEM DE REPUBLICA A
PETRO CANDIDO COMPOSITA
51. PETRI CANDIDI ADNOTATIONES SELECTAE IN LIBROS DE REPUBLICA
Rinucius Aretinus 52. EX EPISTOLARIO PETRI CANDIDI SEDECIM INEDITA
25. Praelatio in versionem Critonis A. PETRUS CANDIDUS GERARDO EPISCOPO LANDRIANO [BR 35]
A. Redactio minor B. EIUSDEM EIDEM [BR 36)
B. Redactio maior C. PETRUS CANDIDUS ROLANDO TALE NTI [R 113]
D. ALFONSUS BURGENSIS PETRO CANDIDO |R 166|
E. EIUSDEM EIDEM (R 168]
* Script;) maiusculis indicata litteris infra sunt prodita in lucem. F. PETRUS CANDIDUS ALFONSO BURGENSI |R 169]
 TEXTS 495
494 P A R T II

G. EIUSDEM EIDEM [R 170] 73. Pauli Niavis epistula praevia ad librum Epistularum
H ALFONSUS BURGENSIS PETRO CANDIDO [R 171] 74. Eiusdem epistula praevia ad librum cui titulus est Amatores
I. EIUSDEM EIDEM [R 173] 75. Praefatio Marsilii in libros Speusippi et Alcinoi a se traductos
J. PETRUS CANDIDUS ALFONSO BURGENSI [R 174] 76. Praefatio Marsilii in librum Xenocratis De morte.
K. EIUSDEM EIDEM (A 88] 77. IOANNIS ADELPHI MULINGI EDITORIS PRAEFATIO IN LIBROS DE CHRIS­
, L. ALFONSUS BURGENSIS PETRO CANDIDO [A 167] TIANA RELIGIONE
M. PETRUS CANDIDUS ALFONSO BURGENSI [A 168] 78. FRANCISCI TAEGU EDITORIS PRAEFATIO IN OPUSCULA
' N. EIUSDEM EIDEM [A 169] PSEUDOPLATONICA
O. OCTAVIUS VICOMERCATUS PETRO CANDIDO [A 214] 79. BADII ASCENSII TYPOGRAPHI PRAEFATIO IN OPERA OMNIA LATINA
P. PETRUS CANDIDUS CONSTANTINO DE IARDIS [A 249] 80. IULII VALERIANI EDITORIS PRAEFATIO IN ALCIBIADEM UTRUMQUE
53. PETRI CANDIDI PRAEFATIO IN VERSIONEM LYSIDIS 81. FRANCISCI ZAMPINI EDITORIS PRAEFATIO IN TIMAEUM LATINUM
54. PETRI CANDIDI SENTENTIA DE COMMUN IONE PLATONICA MULIERUM 82. SIMONIS GRYNAEI EDITORIS PRAEFATIO IN OPERA OMNIA LATINA
BONORUMQUE EX ANTONII RAUDENSIS DIALOGIS IN L AC T ANT IUM 83. ANONYMI PRAEFATIO LECTORI IN EDITIONEM HISPANICAM TIMAEI
DEPROMPTA LATINI
84. ANTONII VINCENTII TYPOGRAPHI PRAEFATIO IN OPERA OMNIA LATINA
85. JACOBI BEURERI EDITORIS PRAEFATIO IN AXIOCHUM LATINUM
Antonius Cassarinus 86. EIUSDEM PRAEFATIO IN EPISTOLAS LATINAS
55. Praefatio in librum qui Axiochus inscribitur 87. GULIELMI LAEMARII TYPOGRAPHI PRAEFATIO IN OPERA OMNIA LATINA
56. Praefatio in librum qui Eryxias inscribitur 88. STEPHANI TREMULAEI EDITORIS PRAEFATIO IN OPERA OMNIA LATINA
57. Isagogicon in Platonis vitam ac disciplinam

Georgius Trapezuntius
58. Praefatio in versionem librorum De legibus Francisco Barbaro et
civitate Venetiarum inscriptam
59. Praefatio in eandem versionem Nicolao papae quinto inscriptam
60. Adnotationes quaedam in libros De legibus
61 i Praefatio in versionem Parmenidis
62. NICOLAI O R T A N I PRAEFATIO IN CENSURAM A SE SCRIPTAM LIBELLI
FERDINANDI CORDUBENSIS CONTRA TRAPEZUNTIUM

Laurentius Lippius Collensis

63. PRAEFATIO IN VERSIONEM LIBRI QUI IO DICITUR

Angelas Politianus
64r PRAEFATIO IN VERSIONEM LIBRI QUI CHARMIDES INSCRIBITUR
65, BADII ASCENSII NOTULAE SUPER CHARMIDE A POL ITIANO LATINE RED-
DITO NEC NON SUPER EIUSDEM PRAEFATIONE

Marsilius Ficinus
66, Praefatio in libros decern Platonis ad Cosmum Medicem
67. Praefatio in libros omnes Platonis ad Laurentium Medicem
68. Vita Platonis a Marsilio composita
69 Marsilii praefatio ad Lectorem
70. Tabula librorum Platonis
71. Naldii versus in Platonis libros Latine redditos
72. Documenta ad editionem primam Platonis a. 1484 pertinentia
 TE X TS 497

Nec m oueat lectorem insuetum librorum -Platonis quod in eodem libro

non Platonis sed Socratis et discipulorum de d o ctrin a esse u ideatur, ipse-
L E O N A R D U S B R U N U S A R E T IN U S 20 que Plato, ut in ipso libro legitur, absens ab ea disputacione ualitudine
im peditus erat. M os enim Platonis est pro sua h u m ilitate in om nibus suis
1. PraeFationem A retini in versionem P haedonis c u ra u e ru n t !Stepha- libris dyaloge aut trialoge uel am plius scribere et doctrinam preceptori
nus B A L U Z IU S , in Stepham Baluza Tutelensis Miscellanea nouo ordine digesta suo Socrati attrib u ere (quod u id etu r in Thymeo) qui com ior et pene solus
... et aucta, studio et opera ... J . D. M ansi, t. I l l , im pr. Lucae a. 1763, pp. et rarissim us apud nos est. T hvm eus enim discipulus fuit, sicut in isto
150-151; -P. L A Z E R U S , in Miscellanea ex M S S libris collecta Bibliothecae 25 libro Phedon disputacionem illam fingitur en arrasse, a quo hec narrante
Collegii Romani Societatis Jesu, t. I, pars 1, im pr. R om ae a. 1754, pp. iste liber Phedon, ille eadem ratione Thymeus Platonis inscribitur; sic
158-160; et 5B A R O N , in Schnften, pp. 3-4. Gorgias Platonis de rethorica quem prem itto.
Nec p reterm itto sensum interpretis L eonardi qui L atinus Fuit cum
pericia lingue G rece et ubique ' ‘a n im u m " uel “ a n im u s’’ interpretatus
30 est. U bi ergo ego hesitaui u tru m “ a n im a m ” pocius interpretari
2. Epistulam A retini ad N icolaum de Niccolis versionem Phaedonis debuisset ex G reco, hac occasione perm u tatu s sum a G reco utriusque
n o n n u m q u am com itantem c u rav eru n t ‘L au ren tius M E H U S , in Leonar- lingue peritissim o E m anueleb qui michi co nstanter asseruit G recos duas
di Arretini Epistolarum libri V III, im pr. F lorentiae a. 1741, t. I, pp. 15-17; dictiones habere pro anim o et pro anim a, et in G reco haberi uerbum
et -ex parte G A R IN (1955), pp. 361-363 editionem priorem sequens, quod an im am significat. Q u in y m o apud eos hunc librum intitulari
m anuscriptis au tem q u ib u sd am F lorentinis collatis. Phedon Platonis seu De anima, sicut dicitur A ristotelis De anima liber.1
35 H u iu s autem gentilis philosophi dicta, ubi a fide C h ristian a deuiant,
non m o ueant C h ristian u m sed quom odo in m ultis concordant ad m iretu r
et g audeat fiatque p ro m p tio r ad credendum et firm ior solidetur in Fide
3. E pistula G uilielm i Fillastre dialogos P haedonem et G orgiam a cum et anim as perpetuas p rem ia pro m eritis, penas pro culpis accepturas
Leonardo A retino L atine redditos com itans, antehac inedita. Ex codice post seperacionem a corpore tarn constanter affirm et. Item que philoso-
unico Bibl. P ubl. R em ensis 862. 40 phus in Gorgia suo confessionem et penitenciam peccatorum in hac uita
o m nino necessariam ad uitam beatam euidentissim e p ro b at, quod nos ex
Prologus G < u ilie lm i> cardinalis sancti M arci. legis au ctoritate recipim us.
V enerabilibus fratribus capitulo ecclesie R em ensis G uilielm us car­
dinalis tituli sancti M arci d u d u m decanus ecclesie vestre salutem .
Doctissim is uiris et aliq u an d o m ichi uisum est istius libri Platonis 7, 13, 14 Therebrotus (-to) M S] Cleombrotus (-to) mahm
quem L atin u m n o u ite r1 effectum bibliothece uestre m itto, presenciam
6-11 cf. Cicero, Disp. Tusc. 1.34.84; Plutarchus, Cato, cap. 72; s. Augustinus, Civ. Dei
m inuere Famam, nec tan tu s esse ut p red icatu r, pro p ter cuius lecturam 1.22-23; Burlaeus, Vitae philos., cap. 52, ed. H. Knust. p. 232 21-24 ibid.; uid. etiam
T h ereb ro tu s ille fertu r se precipitasse de m u ro , ut ex hac u ita m igraret Vincent. Bellouac. Spec. Hist. III.77 et saepiss. in libris auctoritatum.
ad earn qu am credebat m eliorem , et C a th o ille doctissim us R o m an u s seu
"'hie est scriptum irt marg. manu eadem alias et iterum. hprocul dubio Emmanuelem Chrysoloram
ne sub iceretu r u ictori C esari seu pro illius im m ortalitatis am ore au t pro intendit qui tempore Concilii commoratus Constantiae usque ad eius mortem anno 1415. ' hie est
10 utraq u e causa, an im am de corpore non tarn emisisse qu am extraxisse scriptum in marg. manu eadem Tullius tamen ubique scribit animus; super hoc uide Lactan-
scribitur. H u n c au tem m o d ern i q u id am legentes, quibus idem quod tium De utroque homine.
michi u id etu r, pro Platonis au cto ritate et fam a dicunt non esse ilium qui
a T htfrebroto et C ath o n e leg eb atu r, sed certe est ille idem testim onio
A ugustini in p rim o De ciuitate Dei, capitulo xxii, ubi de illo T hereb ro to
15 agit, probans ilium non secutum doctrin am illius libri Platonis, qui 4. P rooem ium auctoris hactenus ineditum ex Ioannis Dogetae Anglici
multi^ p robat arg u m en tis non licere etiam am ore m elioris uite se necare, E xam inatorio in P haedonem sum ptum . Ex cod. M S unico L ondiniensi
quod in hoc libro d isp u tatu m et p ro b atu m satis prolixe rep eritu r. A dd. 10344 Bibl. B ritannicae, ff. 2r-6r.
 498 P A R T II TEXTS 499

Jo h a n n is D ogete Anglici in E x am in a to riu m in P hedonem Platonis ad Sed re u e rta m u r ad id quod est iam dictum : anim o uidelicet ad
reu erendissm um et nobilissim um d o m in u m T h o m am B ourgehier, sancti om nem u eritatem patere aditum . Q u o d , si ad n a tu ra m perspexim us,
C ifiaci in T erm is p resb iteru m card in alem , C a n tu a rie archiepiscopum , 45 non negam us. V eru m tam en sepe uiam cognoscendi claudere et quasi
tocius Anglie prim atem et apostolice sedis legatum p ro h em iu m incipit obicem ponere u id etu r corpus terren u m atque co ncretum , cuius com-
5 foeliciter. m ercio m ag n a ex parte uis anim i frangitur lu m en q u e intellectus ex-
V ersanti m ihi m entem u n d iq u e et in o m n iu m reru m speciem con- tin g u itu r. H in c labim ur, m u ta m u r, erram u s, nescim us, decipim ur,
tem planti incredibilem attu lit u o lu p tatem u n iu erso ru m cum pulchritudo tem ere assen tim u r, turn dem um falsa pro ueris com plectim ur, ut ilia phi-
et dignitas turn n atu ra. A stra enim celum m irifice o rn a n tia lationesque 50 losophorum tu rb a de anim o dissentientium , q u o ru m alii ignem , aerem
in orbem delectabant; turn u a g a n tiu m stellarum cursiones, splendor alii affirm ab an t, m ulti n u m eru m disserebant, u t in Timeo Plato, nec
10 solis, lune globus eiusque m en stru a u m b ra , m agnam me hec q u oque in d eeran t q ui arm o n iam anim am dicerent, ut A risthossenus m usicus idem-
adm irationem ad d u x eran t; iam initiis n a tu re q u e elem entis delectabar, que philosophus, au t hie noster Sim m ias, atque eciam alii earn statim
q u p ru m conciliatione tem p eratio n eq u e infera pene om nia anim an cia dissipari, u t Epicurii, alii diu m anere, ut Stoici, alii sem per, ut Socrates:
coalescunt; arb o ru m quoque gem m as, com as nouo flore uirentes, fruc- 55 pro suo quique ingenio uoluere. E nim uero qu em ad m o d u m sol in-
tusque earu n d em tem pestiuos, te rra m su p ra herb id am m u ltip h arieq u e d iu id u u s diffusis radiis aerem dispare < m > illum inat, ille uero, ut est
15 depictam , infra uero iacincto au ro q u e tu m e n te m — hec om nia iucun- nebulis liber, splendescit, ut grauis, sic ad caliginem accedit proxime:
dissim a cogitacione reuolui: quid, ut ad pecora u en iam u s q u o ru m alia sim illim e u n u m ipsum que idem anim i lum en pro co rporum habitu quali-
uagantia, alia celo libero uolantia, reptilia alia atq u e g raditia, turn singu­ tateque splendescit, turn hoc quoque uidere licet, gem inis lucernis ad
la ^ingulis prestare officiis n a tu ra m iro artificio conflauit. B um bix enim 60 uicem accensis, u ariu m fieri lum en ac m ultiplex.
regiam texit telam , fu n d u n t m ella apes, turn reliqua propriis ex ercen tu r Sed accedit alia quoque stulticie causa: anim i prau itas, que uniuersam
20 opetris, ut ad negocium q ueque n a tu ra p ro d u xerit. prope m entem p eru ertit et obruit. A thenas e rro ru m om nium inuentrices
H ec o m nia m ihi iugi anim o ut sepe soleo p erlu stran ti: hom o suam ex- stolidas fecit elacio, qui id u n u m quod ipsi p ro b aren t priscum uisum iri
tulit form am et in n a tu ra p rim am u en d icau it p artem . H ab et enim com ­ p u ta b a n t, reliqua quoque om nia puerilem redolere doctrinam . H inc
m une cum reliquis u t uegetet, ut crescat, u t m o tu m agitet, u t senciat. 65 H e b re o ru m disciplinam contem pnebant et deum , hinc P aulum doctrine
Sed quod reliquam ad m iratio n em uin cit, p recip u u m illud hab et u t diui- C h ristian e m agistrum irrid eb an t et im m ortalem lu d eb an t anim um : uolui
25 na h u m a n a q u e cognoscat. V ires itaq u e in h u m an o genere n a tu ra earn in bestiam , tru d i in A cheronta, post longa exacta tem pora in
specim enque consum psit: quippe que u n u m ex o m nibus ratio n alem finx- co rp o ra reu erti, Letheo flum ine potari. H ec est tan to ru m principum
it hom inem . N am reliqua q ueque au t su n t racionis expercia au t diuino philosophorum expolita descripcio: paucis equidem recte sentientes,
nihil suffragante n a tu ra o rd in ata consensu. P er D eum im m ortalem ! Q ue 70 e rra b a n t in m ultis, uel quod ita rerum a rd u a ru m exposcebat natu ra
est ilia uis anim i q u a non m odo h u m a n a te rren aq u e cognoscim us, sed neque p o teran t rei splendorem tarn lippis oculis cernere, uel quod populo
30 celbrum o m nem p en etram u s am b itu m et ad deum proxim e aspiram us assencientes has sibi co m p araru n t inepcias, uel, quod ego non m inus
be^tum ? V acat n u sq u am cogitatio p eren n is, sed sem p er m o litu r aliquid arb itro r, dem onis ludificacione defecerant. (Ille n am q u e, ut est in
aut querit aut co n tem p latu r aut cernit. O culus bella tu rp iaq u e capescit, euangelicis m onum entis trad itu m , m endax ab inicio fuit et in ueritate
auiiis sonore u ersatu r, tactus leuia tra c ta t et d u ra , olfactus odoriferum , 75 non stetit; m en dax igitur m endaces com plectitur et ad uan itatem trahit
gustus acerb a sentit et dulcia, u eru m an im e uis atq u e n a tu ra ad alciora quos allicit.) P ug n are quoque sibi m entem hoc loco m ihi u id etu r et iam
35 sese accom odans q uid q u aq u e in re u e ru m sit atq u e sincerum a d m ira tu r ad u eritatem n a tu ra contendere, iam p rau itate seductam aberrare.
et {jierspicit. T u rn hoc quoque egregium h ab et u t se ipsam ipsa uideat Siccine igitu r sibi reconciliatam earn a rb itre m u r ad uices in utroque
spectetque n a tu ra m suam uim q u e illam p er q uam presencia complec- uersari et iam diuina deprom ere, iam p ro p h an a sentire. Sic enim
titd r, p reterito ru m m em init, prospicitque fu tu ra. Q u id illud preceptum 80 philosophorum libros miscere uideo, et, ut ho rrea, sic palea frugeque
Appllinis quo m onet ut se quisque noscat? N im iru m u t an im u m om nia fulciri. Q u a m sancte nonnulla q u am que religiose de anim o Plato scrip-
40 perkpicientem etern u m d iu in u m im m o rtalem noscat. A tque hinc serit, legenti perlate patet, ita u t sit in p ro m p tu , sed tam en ut m ente
Socrates eius ipsius A polinis oraculo o m n iu m sapientissim us et philoso­ captus, d um diserta prom it, subicit aliena, et exquisita carpentes, prox-
phic studiosus in u en to r m ortem sp reu it nec iudicium capitis tim uit. im um sepe erro rem carpim us.
 500 P A R T II TE X TS 501

85 M ihi igitur q u u m aliq u an d o P lato esset in m anibus illicque de 5 tern accipiunt; at qui rem ag rariam ii egregium qu em p iam preponunt
anim o ru m im m o rtalitate p reclara legissem , dignus m ihi uisus fuit in rusticum . Sicque decoro prouisum fore p u ta n t, at co n tra elaborare
quern ocium transferrem rneum et, si que sancte ac religiose dixerit, ea p eruersum .
uerbis meis p ro b arem et ex ag g erarem ; que uero aliena aut exploderem Q u am o b rem q uum statuissem Socratis quern in m orte habuit de in-
aut Castigata d im itterem . Nec hoc d ictum a rro g an ter existim are uelim , m ortali anim o explicare serm onem et personam pro rei habitu dignis-
90 narri philosophiam facile sibi concedens, fidem m eam profecto effero, cui 10 sim am cogitassem , nem o m ihi p ar tibi u id e b a tu r et cui equius de eo quod
si qUe p u gnancia tem ere au t p e tu la n te r dixerit, q u am q u am Achilli philo- principes philosophi senserint destinarem . N am q u u m tutelam celitus
sophorum obsisterem , secularibus q u o q u e litteris et si aliquando uisus a n im aru m fideique patrocinium susceperis, uel in q u a anim us im m or-
fuerd frequencior, tam en non erit q u o d in propriam reprehencionem in- talis sim bolum suum locum que p roprium habere u id etu r, plurim um tibi
curram . Lege, si placet, cum reliq u o ru m catholicorum p lu riu m , turn ad confirm andum subjectum populum prestare p u tau i, si C hristianae
95 Iheronim i A ugustinique libros: tarn eos philosophorum sentenciis 15 fidei philosophi eciam ex om ni gentilitate prestantissim i disciplina ac-
poetarum que carm in ib u s a b u n d a re perspexeris, quasi om nem G raeco­ cesserit. Erubescent quoque perfidi C h ristiani q u am ueritas predicauit
rum < philosophorum > p o e ta ru m q u e bibliothecam reuoluissent. Q uid earn fidem abnegare, si prophanos et ad quos fu tu ra m inim e pertinet
Paulus apostolus ad T itu m scribens, E pim enidis poete uersiculo est usus? b eatitudo tantis earn conatibus asseuerare perspexerint. Q ue si sint, quid
— Sib enim Ih ero n im u m dicere uideo, nam poeta ille aut usu excidit aut d u bitet quod uel est iam prius dictum et dignam tibi rem uisam fore et
100 uetustate d e le tu r— : “ C re te n s e s ,” sic ait, “ sem per m endaces, male 20 te rei dignitati q u ad rare quam optim e? Accedit ad hec in nata m ea in te
bestie, uentres p ig ri.” pietas et obseruancia prope singularis, turn tu a in om nes hum anitas
Nbs igitur in stitu tu m m u n u s prosequi uolentes, in quibus dignius m ansuetudo et caritas me uehem enter in u itau it atq u e coegit, ut studium
elabo ran d u m sit collegim us locos, reliq u aq u e turn intellectu faciliora m eum his hibernis noctibus lu cu b ratu m tuo nom ini dedicarem : cui pro
putau i, si Socratem prius audientes, m e q u am q u am rusticanum uideatis tu a u irtu te prope d iu in a (ne < i n > fam ilia tu a uerser, que tam en regio
105 interp retem . S unt enim n o n n u lla ab d ita planeque obscura et que enu- 25 illu strato r genere com itibusque ac ducibus splendet pluribus) sum m a
cleatbrem d esiderant. V ulgo in q u am hom in u m : sic loquor, cum ne liber quidem fortuna pari dignitate et ecclesiastica et seculari coniuncta
quidem adm o d u m studiosis tritu s esse u i d e < a > t u r — hinc, ut opinor, respondet.
uel quod o pereprecium non a rb itre n tu r an im o rum im m ortalitatem disse- Accipe igitur, reuerendissim e pater, hec no stra studia ad tuum iudi-
rere, cuius nullius in m en tem cadere solet dubitacio, uel quod iam pri- cium elaborata, teque hie noster labor h abeat p rim u m qui, etsi nullum
110 dem L atinis illu stretu r litteris, nec satis u u lg atu r recens A retinus in- 30 orationis o rn am en tu m com plectitur sed ab om ni dicendi flore abhorrere
terpres. uid etu r, equus tam en pro tua h u m an itate esse debes, neque quid
g rau ari, q u ando a philosopho m inim e req u iren d a eloquencia fuerit, cui
sat est, quod uult, id uerbis q u am q u am rusticanis effundere, floresque
15-16 incundissima sic M S 17 uatancia M S graditia post con. 33 sonoro M S 45 con- oracionis et uenustates bene dicendi professis relinquere. Q uod si tibi pro
uoscendi M S 58 unum] nuum sic M S 106 cum malim] turn M S
35 ecclesiasticis consiliis proque publicis regni negociis quibus iam tua in-
74-76 Jo. 8: 44 100-101 Ti. 1: 12 cum bit sanctitas legendi copia non fuerit, sunt tibi professores et m agistri
fam iliares egregii, q u o ru m alii sua sepenum ero d o ctrin a m eam strux-
e ru n t indolem , alii m ecum ab ineunte etate parib u s studiis fuere fre-
quentes. H is enim , si castigandi prouinciam dederis, ita sunt ingeniis
5. D edicatio auctoris, an teh ac inedita, ex Ioannis D ogetae Anglici Ex- 40 prediti d o ctrinaque prestantes, ut facile errorem om nem eliciant stir-
am inatorio in P haedonem su m p ta. Ex eodem codice qui an tea, ff. 6r-7v. pitus, egoque eos clem entes obtestor iudices. Sed ad Platonem ipsum
pergam us.
Solent, reuerendissim e p ater, qui perscribendis rebus operam dan t ad
alicuius nom inis auspicium opus inchoare et eius quidem cuius negotium
aptisSim um fore u id e a tu r, ut ii qui de re publica scribunt uirum habent 6 decori malim 10 quod] quid M S 17 si j. M S 34 dicendo M S
im perii, qui m ilitarem disciplinam form an t u eteran u m aliquem prestan-
502 P A R T II TEXTS 503

6. Praefationem A retini in G orgiam a se L atine red d itu m cu rau it BER- 481A N ota ratione n atu rali cuncta v erb a concludere
T A i o T , q. u ., t. II, pp. 268-270. 484C -D [signum loci potioris]
527B-C N ota.

7. A rg u m en tu m A retini in G orgiam c u ra u it idem B E R T A L O T , t. II,

p. 268.
9. P raefationem A retini in P h aed ru m L atin u m cu rau eru n t 'Io an n es
D A S C H IO , in Sulla vita e sugli scritti di Antonio Loschi Vicentino, im pr.
P atau ii a. 1858, pp. 168-170; et 2B A R O N , in Schriften, pp. 125-127.

8. N otabilia m an ib u s L eonardi A retini et Nicolai de Niccolis ex arata in

codice Scorialensi N .I I I .7 Platonis Gorgiam continenti

N otabilia m anu N icolai 10. A rg u m en tu m A retini in P h aed ru m , antehac ineditum .

44 9 P R hetorica
M usica La — L au r. P lut. 76, 43 Vd — V at. lat. 8611
R heto rica circa quid est Lb — L au r. A edil. 160 Ve — V at. lat. 3407
450D A rim ethica [ric] Va — V at. lat. 2064 B — U niv. Bonon. 2830
A stronom ia Vb — V at. lat. 2065 P — P ar. lat. 6568
45 IE C a rm e n in conviviis Vc — V at. lat. 3348
456B N ota
461C -D N ota de iuvene A rg u m en tu m in P h aed ru m .
462B R h eto rica non esse artem Lysias fuit o rato r a n tiq u a, ut q u id am tra d u n t, origine Syracusanus,
R h eto rica est peritia q u aed am ceterum A thenis ortus educatusque, p atre C ephalo fratre Polem arco,
463A-B N ota q u o ru m et in libris De republica m em init Plato. H a b ita u it autem in Pireo
466A N ota diligenter 5 q ui locus ex tra u rb em censebatur, ex eo quod ab antiquis erat m oenibus
49 I E f. [signum loci potioris] longe seiunctus. H u iu s Lysiae orationes p lurim ae circum ferebantur, et
493A Elegans vir Siculus u n a in ter alias non ilia quidem negotiosa, sed um bratilis, in q u a m ultis
D olium pertu su m appellavit ap p etitum ratio n ib u s su adebat non am an ti potius qu am am an ti esse inhaerendum .
518B M ithecus m agister coquin arie artis ad Sicul < os > C o n tra hanc orationem Plato dupliciter scripsit, prim o de hoc ipso allis
522B Socrates accusatus q u ia co rru m p it iu ventutem 10 ratio n ib u s longe probabilius, deinde aduersus ilia quae prius uel a se uel
a Lysia fu eru n t dicta. Serm o autem om nis Socrati a ttrib u itu r. M an at
N otabilia m an u L eonardi uero ex congressu P h aed ri qui a Lysia redire fm gitur, et hanc orationem
452E N ota utilitatem huius artis secum afferre. Incipit ergo Socrates P h aedro obuius: “ O am ice P haedre,
456A-B N ota exem plum q u o n am et u n d e ? ”
457D N ota finem d isputationis vane
458A-B [.signum loci potions]
461C -D [signum loci potioris] 3 fratre Cephalo patre Polemarcho Ve 4 quorum] quo Ve et] etiam Va Vd La Epireo
La 7 negocia Vb 9 alii Vc 10 longe post ipso Lb 12 congressu] progressu Lb: consen­
466A [signum loci potioris]
su B orationem] rationem B
469B [signum loci potioris]
472B [signum loci potioris]
478D -E [signum loci potioris]
 504 P A R T II TE XTS 505

11. A rg u m en tu m A retini in A pologiam Socratis, antehac ineditum . 3-4 inimicis] amicis Vd 4 indicante Ab 5 Melitus] Iraditus Vd 7 de religione ... Ad
am. Vb recta sic in codd. 8 totius] eius Vd: om. Aa Ab 9 primo orn. Vd iam am. 0
21 uoluntatis iudicium Aa Ab 22 inscitia] iudicia Aa: iusticia.4A 23 est a Socrate B 25
Aa — A m bros. C 69 inf. Pb — P ar. lat. 6568 permonendos Aa 28 ipse] esse Vd in ante commiseratione add. Vd
Ab — A m bros. M 4 sup. U — BAV U rb . lat. 1314
B — U niv. Bonon. 2465 Va — BAV V at. lat. 2064
La — L au r. Plut. 76, 43 Vb — BAV V at. lat. 2065
Lb — L au r. Plut. 76, 57 Vc — BAV7 V at. lat. 3348
O — BAV O tto b . lat. 2141 12. In C rito n em eius L atinum arg u m en tu m ut videtur A retini
Vd — BAV V at. lat. 6265
Pa — Par. lat. 6729A p rim itiu u m , antehac ineditum , quod ex aratu m est in cod. M S N eapoli­
Ve — BAV V at. lat. 8611
tan. Bibl. N at. V III G 56, ff. 1 lv -l2 r, ad calcem folii (N ), nec non litteris
Leonardi A retini a rg u m e n tu m in A pologiam Socratis rubricis in cod. R oscoensi, f. 37r (R).
Socrates philosophus, u ir o m n iu m innocentissim us atq u e iustissim us,
prim o ab inuidis et o b trectato rib u s infam ia u arie iactatus, tandem ab in- D ialogus Platonis incipit, ubi Socrates in tro d u citu r et eius amicus
imicis in iudicium tractus est iudicante im p erita m u ltitu d in e, utpote C rito , qui pridie q uam Socrates m ortem obiret prim o diluculo ad carce-
5 Athertis in ciuitate p opulari. F u e ru n t accusatores eius tres: M elitus, rem uenit, Socratem de p ropinqua eius m orte certiorem facit, eum que
A nvtus et Lycon. C a p ita uero accusationis duo: quod iu u en tu tem cor- sum m opere d ep recatu r, quoniam lacile sit custodes decipere, ne se m orti
ru m p eret, et quod de religione d eo ru m non recta sentiret. Ad haec ipse obiciat; qui iniustissim e dam n atu s nolit o p o rtu n itate fugiendi uti, si sui
capita in defensione respondet. P artes orationis totius ad m in im u m tres, nihil interest, saltern intuitu am icorum uel filiorum uelit. C ui Socrates ita
prim o de accusatione ipsa prin cip aliq u e iudicio, deinde, cum iam iudi- prim o de uera atq u e fallaci fam a, ita postea de caritate erga patriam et fide
10 catum fuisset reum uideri, secunda erat iudicatio de poena q u a afficien- diligenter accurateque disseruit, ut plane C rito n i p ersuadeat iniustissi-
dus esset. L iceb an tu r enim actor et reus delictum , flagitabatque actor m um esse u iru m b onum patriae etiam in iq u u m iudicium subterfugere.
d u rio rem , reus m itiorem poenam . D uo ig itu r haec iudicia, duae partes.
Tertiai post d am n atio n em dicta co n tin et. C u m enim m orte d am n atu s
esset, m ulta ac p u lch errim a dixit a n te q u a m iudices ipsi d ig red eren tu r. 2 diliculo R 5 sua .V 8 plane om. .V Critoni] Platoni N
15 G enus autem o rationis huius philosopho congruet, ab o rato re uero
alienupa est. N on enim uictoriae studet, nec m otus adhibet an im o ru m
quod pathos G raeci u ocant, in q u ib u s u ictoriam consistere m anifestum
est. C u m q u e duo sint p roposita o rato ri in defensionibus efficere, u n u m 13. A rg u m en tu m A retini in C ritonem curau it E rnestus B E R T I, q. v.,
ut possint, alteru m ut uelin t iudices reu m absoluere, q u o ru m alteru m in- p. 205.
20 nocentiae est, alteru m fauoris, inno cen tem se uideri Socrates non om-
nino rteglexit, sed fauorem u o lu n ta te m q u e iudicum pro m ereri sibique
conciliare anim os n eq u a q u a m c u rau it. Nec id au t inscitia aut hebetudine
facturp a Socrate est, sed m ag n itu d in e an im i m ortisque co n tem p tu . V era
14. P raefationem A retini in Platonis epistulas a se traductas cu rau eru n t
enim boni uiri defensio per ostensionem innocentiae u id e tu r esse, cetera
25 uero m ach in am en ta et artes ad iudices flectendos perm ouendosque 'A ngelus M a ria B A N D IN IU S in Bibliotheca Leopoldina Laurentiana seu Ca-
adhibita eorum sunt, qui non tarn delicta ipsa q uam poenam iudicii talogus M SS, etc., im pr. Florentiae a. 1774, t. I, p. 696; et 2*B A R O N , in
m ortefnque fo rm idant. H aec au tem non eran t in Socrate. Itaq u e non Schriften, pp. 135-137.
filios adduxit plorantes, non lacrim as ipse effudit, non com m iseratione
usus est, nihil denique suppliciter dem isseque locutus, sed alto atque
>0 libero anim o cuncta transegit. H aec autem om nia philosophi grauitati
consona, uictoriae tam en inim ica fuere. 15. A rg u m en tu m A retini in Platonis ep istularum versionem curauit
idem B A R O N , ibid., pp. 137-138.
 506 P A R T II TEXTS 507

16. G uillerm i Ficheti ep istulam m issionis in codiculo Platonis 19. B ern ard in i D ard an i poetae M ediolanensis uersus hendecasyllabi in
E pistularum insertam , scil. cod. M S P ar. lat. 16580, ff. 3v-4v, curauit codice M S P ar. lat. 8611 adseruati, hactenus m erito inediti.
A. C L A U D IN , The First Pans Press, im p r. L ondinii a. 1898, p. 87.
A d rev erendum dom inum D o m inum S tep h an u m P oncherium Par-
rh isiorum episcopum dignissim um ac sanctum M ediolani m oderatorem .

M ittit m u n era et hie et hie et ille,

17. Ioannis C h o u a rd epistula ad illam Ficheti respondens, quae cum
sed qui m u n era m ittit hie et ille
eodem in codice ad seru ata sit, f. 2r-v, adhuc restat inedita.
5 haec sperat sibi m utuo rependi
vel dono simili uel hoc uel illo
Nichil u n q u am o p p o rtu n iu s neque gracius quam tuus ad me libellus
m ercatu rq u e m agis dolisque tecum
de platonis epistolis. N am cu ram publicae rei quam ille vir sum m us tan-
agit pessim us hie negociator.
to qpere nec ab re suscepit et in celum laudibus extullit, que m ichi fere
Longe m ens alia est tui clientis
exofeuerat ut necesse fuit in ter tot curie strepitus et crepitus arm o ru m ,
10 qui dono lepidum dedit libellum .
5 pen^tus suscitasti. Nec q u id em , ut ais, m u n u s tale m etior hunc librum qui
C u iu s si capiere lectione,
uenqlis m inim o foret, sed rem p erp en d en s et am orem erga me tu u m quo
erit gratior om nibus libellis;
te nobis prorsus dedere visus es. H ec enim non auro nec gefnmis ullis, sed
tan to gratior om nibus libellis,
probitate et fide m utuo ac pari anim o p en sa n tu r. Ista inter talia eru n t, ut-
q u an to m uneribus uel his uel illis
pot$ honesta com m ercia, q uibus iu v an tib u s diis u n a dom i ac in u rbe, ut
15 virtu tern facis usque et usque pluris.
() spero, breui fore finem . Ac ne tibi ut gratias agam expectes, iam pridem
hoc a benivolencia nostra que ad su m m am necessitudinem p eruenit subla- R ev eren d i dom ini vester hum illim us cliens D ard an u s.
turp esse debet, seu forte si quas ex petiueris, P latoni sine tuo iussu habitu-
rus. C u ra ergo ut ualeas ac valentem te m ichi serua.
Q u a rto Idibus M aii. 5
20. B aptistae A ugustensis epistulam m issionis H a rtm a n n o Schedel in-
scriptam et in cod. M onacensi C L M 225 ante f. 108 interiectam curauit
5 hunc] hanc M S 7 vid- ante visus canc. 8 pansantur M S R . S T A U B E R , in Die Schedel’sche Bibliothek, im pr. F rib u rg i a. 1908, p.
242.

18. G ulielm i Brigonnet epistula m issionis codici Platonis E pistularum ,

scil. Par. lat. 6568, praefixa, antehac inedita. 21. H en rici Stolberger epistulam m issionis H a rtm a n n o Schedel inscrip-
tam et in eodem codice ante f. 108 interiectam c u rau it idem uir, ibid.,
G < u lie lm u s > L odouensis episcopus reverendissim o in C hristo patri p. 243.
ac illustrissim o dom ino G eorgio < d e C o sta > sanctae R o m an ae ec-
clesiae cardinali ac legato excellentissim o salutem p lu rim am dicit.
Q u an to fastigio philosophia caeteris liberalibus disciplinis h u m ano
studio a d < i > u m e n t i s m aio r est, tanto sublim iore ceruice reliquos
philosophos Plato transcendit ac sydera prope uertice contigit. Eius igitur
diuini uiri libellos illos quos L eo n ard u s A rretin u s Latinos ex G raecis
fecit, cum a reru m ad m in istratio n e q u icq u am ocii tibi supererit, lectione
tua d ignare. Eum enim u iru m lectitabis qui, q u am uis om ni laude
cum ulatus sis, n u n q u am tam en te nisi clariorem a se dim ittet. V ale.
 TE X T S 509

ipso hu m an i generis ortu n atu ra hom inis cacfuca atque fragilis fuerit, eo
m agis caduca et fragilior continuo efficitur quo hom ini ab hom ine usque
C IN C IU S R O M A N U S 3 etiam ad internicionem noua quotidie nocendi genera excogitantur, a t­
que ad illecebras et im m oderatum uiuendi m odum ita profusiores sum us
22. Praef’ationem C incii in uersionem suam libri platonici qui Axiochus ut eo nostra uita deducta sit ut paucis interiectis diebus incolum es uiuere
in tity latu r c u ra u e ru n t ‘A. M O R E L -F A T IO , in Romania, t. X IV , a. possim us et nostra aetas continuo contractior el'ficiatur. H ac itaque con-
1885, pp. 99-100; et 2M . L E H N E R D T , in Zeitschr. f. vergleichende sideratione inductus serm onem ilium diuinitus a Platone editum potissi-
Literaturgesch. , n. s., t. X IV , a. 1901, pp. 163-164; et 3B E R T A L O T , q. 0 m um R o m an u m effeci, q u am q u am illius diuini lum inis splendor etiam
u., t. II, pp. 134-135. a uiro u triu sq u e linguae peritissim o in nostro patrio serm one m inim e
seruari possit. H u n c itaque serm onem reuerendissim o in C hristo patri et
dom ino D om ino J o rd a n o cardinali de U rsinis dedicatum tibi m itto, ut in
eo uitae ac m ortis nostrae conditionem plane intelligas, et cum ego tui
23. E pistulam m issionis C incii ad q u en d am V elleium datam (eius uer- 5 hom inis hum anissim i tuque mei am antissim i desiderio m ouearis, huius
sionqm Axiochi p leru m q u e co m itan tem ) cu rau it L E H N E R D T , op. c it., serm onis lectione absentes quasi praesentes sim us et coram una loqui
pp. 161-162 ex codice Parisiensi. u id eam u r.
V ale. Bononiae.
Aa — A m bros. C 69 int. P — Sem in. P atau . M S 119
Ab — A m bros. M 4 sup. P a r .— Par. lat. 6729A
B — U niv. O xon. M S Bodl. 881 1 Inscnptio sic in Aa Ab P: Epistula disertissimi Cincii Romani ad Velliurn de traductione
operis sequentis lege leliciter S; Epistula ... sequentis incipit Par. 2 siquidem] quidem
B P re] te Aa Par. 5 sanctimonie BP Par.\ sanctimonis Aa Ab 6 et Aa .TZi] etiam BP
Cincii R o m an i epistula ad V elleium de trad u ctione sequentis operis. 6-7 momento Aa Ab P 7 putetur B 8 ilium om. Aa Ab Par. 9 plerumque am. B 10
Locus siquidem , suauissim e V elli, ut tu ipse crebro re expertus es, agitabatur Aa Ab 15 quae om. Aa Ab 21 recreari P Par ] recitan Aa Ab B 23 hominis
m axim e m ouet h o m in u m m entes. Q u is enim nisi om nino ferreus et a re- om. Aa Ab P 23-24 atque ... et om. B 26 et] etiam B 27 eo] ea B 28 continue B 32
Hunc BP\ Nunc Aa Ab 36-37 uideamur loqui Par.
ligione et pietate erga D eum alienus, d u m in g red itu r sacellum illud La-
teranense quod ob sanctim oniae excellentiam sanctum sanctorum n u n ­ 18 Cicero Ep. Jam. IX. 1.2.
c u p a t e , non m o u eatu r anim o et saeculares res saltern tem poris m om en-
tulo asp ern etu r et pro nihilo putet? Q u is p raeterea nisi som niculosae et
paene extinctae m entis existat, dum in tu e tu r locum ilium quern im perita
m ultitudo errore ind u cta C atilin ae d o m u m appellat, ubi plerum que 24. P raefationem in librum platonicum De u irtu te a C incio latine red-
senatus consulta a g ita b a n tu r, non m o u e a tu r anim o quan d o quidem d itu m , u n a cum uersione ipsa, cu rauit Paulus O skarius K R IS T E L L E R
u id etb r inspicere et ante oculos suae m entis u ersari im agines illorum (1985), pp. 250-255.
clarispim orum u iro ru m ciuium R o m a n o ru m qui ibi sedentes de uniuerso
orbe iudicabant?
Q uo rsu m haec tarn m ulta de loco? Q u ia , dum B ononiae diuersatus
sum , quae q u o n d am o m n iu m b o n a ru m disciplinarum altrix fuit et quasi
alterde A thenae, me ipsum erexi et tan tu lu m m eum ingenium tenui doc-
trin a excultum su perioribus tem p o rib u s quo d am m odo sopitum excitaui.
R edii itaque ad ueteres am icos, id est, ut C icero ait, ad libros, in quibus
tam quam in portu ex u ario ru m casuum fluctuatione agitatus p aru m p er
acquieui. C u m autem m agna apud me m ultitudo eorum praesertim
librorum esset q u o ru m lectione recreari possem , in ter ceteros Platonis
serm onem de co n tem n en d a m orte auide arrip u i. N am q u am q u ain ab
 TEXTS 511

perfectionem tria sint necessaria, n a tu ra ratio p a rite r et consuetudo, hac

om ni ex parte te esse perfectum existim am us, ut genus et patriam ac reli-
R IN U C IU S A R E T IN U S jq q u a b ona externa quae in laudando p raeteriri m inim e solent
p raeteream u s. T u profecto ea p ru d en tia es praed itu s q uam pauci
25A . P raefationis in C rito n em L a tin u m M an u eli Paleologo im peratori hactenus sunt consecuti. A pud enim m aiores G raeco ru m sapientis
dicatum redactionem m in o rem c u ra u e ru n t *D. P. L O C K W O O D , q. nom en sibi u en d icaru n t L ycurgus et Solon, qui alter L acedaem oniis alter
u ., pp. 104-105; et 2E rn estu s B E R T I, q. u ., p. 127. A theniensibus leges in stitu eru n t; T hales quo q u e, q u ia uetustatis plurim a
15 m em oria tenebat hac rerum m u ltaru m usum hab eb at. T u uero non
solum n a tu ra , sed uitae sanctim onia, m orum in teg ritate, studio et doc-
trin a sapiens es et appellandus atque censendus, non secus ac Socratem
25B . Praefationis in eiusdem versionem eidem principi dicatam redac­ P ythius iudicauit Apollo. Q u am o b rem tu a ru m lau d u m ercodvov in
tionem m aiorem cu rau it idem B E R T I, ib id ., pp. 129-132; uid. etiam praesen tia consulto sileo: censeo enim potius esse tacendum q uam de iis
quod scripsit idem u ir doctus in Siudi classici ed orientali dell’ Univ. degli 20 accum ulatissim e non dicere. V eru m enim cum in ter cetera uirtutis tuae
Studi di Pisa, t. X X X III, a. 1983, ubi u ariae lectiones ex M SS in priori eyxtofxta hoc in te sit praestantissim um , quod p raeter ceteros m ortales
libifo praeterm issis m e m o ra n tu r. non solum diligis, sed am as studia artiu m b o n a ru m , et in tan ta rerum
mole tan to q u e im perii culm ine regim ine ac gubern atio n e quicquid otii
d atu m est, id totum consum is ea parte philosophiae quae quondam in
25 otio discebatur, tibi offero librum Platonis rcepi 7tpaxTou ab huiusce
26. R inucii epistula d ed icato ria versioni suae praefixa Platonis libri qui h u m an itatis studiis m inim e alienum , quern L atin u m feci a teneris, ut
C rito in scribitur; hactenus inedita. G raeci aiu n t, unguicolis, non eo fortasse u e rb o ru m o rn atu quo est apud
suos, ueste tam en tam u en usta ut lectorem allicere atque delectare possit.
G — G enuensis cod. Bibl. D u razzo B V 14 Spero itaque quod sine alio ap p aratu facile g ratiam exorabit apud te doc-
M — A m bros. R 21 sup. 30 tissim um atque h um anissim um Platonis d u m tax at nom ine, cum sapien-
P — BAV P atetta 339 tia sub h u rrillim o et pallio soleat tibi grata esse atque iucunda.
V — BAV cod. Basilicae s. P etri H 46

Stirpes codicum sic recenseri possunt:

1-3 Dialogus Socratis et Platonis. Prologus incipit M V : Plato. De seruandis legibus pro-
hemium G : in m a r g . P m a n . recen t .: Piccolomineo. 4 tuas o m . P 5 uereor M P V \ reor p o s t
to cott . G 6 magnitudo rei P perfecto G aut] atque G 7 industria o m . P iis] his G 9
ac G P \ et M V 11 prudentia G P , p o s t cott. M ] scientia V, m a n u s p n m a M 13 qui] quod
a G 15 memorit V hac G ] atque M P V multarum rerum V 17 es et] esset G ac om .
PV 18 m m u ' v o v o m . M V 19 consulto G \ sponte M P V , f o r t , ex r ed a ct, p r i o n a u c to r is 20
cumulatissime P enim P G \ tamen M V 21 ryxcopia G] expcifiia s ic P : o m . M V in te sit]
G P P intersit P 23 -que o m . G ac G P ] atque M V 24 id o m . G 25 rctpi npaxtou o m . P V , s e d
p r a e b e n t s p a tiu m X I I litte r a r u m 27 non enim fortasse eo M V 28 tam o m . M V P 31 et G V \
etiam P : o m . M
M V

R eueren d issim o in C h risto p a tro n o et dom ino suo singulari D om ino

< G abrieli C o n d u lm e ro > a m iseratione d iu in a tituli sancti d e m e n tis
presbytero cardinali Senensi R in u ciu s salutem . 27. R inucii praefationem in librum qui A xiochus d icitu r a se latine red-
Etsi laudes tuas e n a rra re atq u e describere uelim , reuerendissim e d itu m et prim u m A ngelotto Fusco episcopo C auensi, postea Nicolao
pater dom in eq u e piissim e, u ereo r illas uerbis consequi non posse. T a n ta papae Q u in to dicatum cu rau it L O C K W O O D , q. u ., pp. 103-104.
est enim rei m ag n itu d o ut n em inem nisi perfectum ingenio aut
elab o ratu m in d u stria de iis dicere oporteat. N am cum ad cuiusque rei
 TE X TS 513

nobis u n u m om nium iocundissim um cedas. m unus. Q u id enim deesse

m ihi aliquando apud te q uiuerit, ubi am icitia me tu a fam iliaritateque
F R A N C IS C U S P H IL E L P H U S donaueris? N onne praeterea et A llexander ille M acedo longe se magis
qu am suscipientibus digna m u n era effundenda p o n d eran d aq u e cen-
28. Philelphi praefatio ad suam Platonis E uthy phronis in terpretationem 40 sebat?
hactenus inedita. Q u a m c u rau i codice unico V allicelliano C 87 adhibito. Sed hec apud te hactenus m ulta. T em pus enim iam adm onet, quod
sibi d iuinus Plato hoc in serm one uoluerit ut accurate et diligenter con-
Solebant pru d en tes uiri < c u m > P ersaru m reges pro re quapiam sid eretu r. Q u a re ipse iam de quo lo q u im u r E u th y p h ro n , circa quern
adire instituissent, p ater clem entissim e, ea ad illos deferre m u n era que huiusm odi tota u ersatu r disputatio, felicibus auspiciis afferatur in
offerentium pietatem atque o b seru an tiam d eclaratu ra iudicassent. Reges m edium .
autem illi eo pacto ea suscipiebant, ut non cupidi, non au ari O drvsiorum
D m ore principum , sed hum anissim i, sed m agnified sed iure optim o im-
perato ria prediti m aiestate splendoreque censerentur. Longe enim 6 maiestate com. V. Brown] molestate M S 29 imperatorern M S 35 ut] et M S 36 cedat
m aiora quam accepissent clario raq u e et augustiora contra referebant. M S 41 quod] quid M S 42 ut] et M S

Q ui certe principes ad eu n tiu m mos cum inde usque ueteri quasi quodam 24-27 uid. Euang. s. Marci 12: 41
instiituto in p o steritatem circu m q u aq u e transfusus om nem ad hunc usque
10 diem et perseueret et crescat, operae precium ab me fieri uisus sum ,
pater m odestissim e, si uolenti iam m ihi tuam adire h u m an itatem eodem
apud te m odo sum m ae turn integritatis et sapientie turn m axim e d ignita­ 29. Philelphi uersio L atina trium Platonis epistu laru m , hactenus
tis et am plitudinis u iru m aditus p atu erit, qui apud priscos et ciaros reges inedita.
uiris p ru d en tib u s patuisset.
15 A — A m bros. M 4 sup.
Q u am o b rem quod uel m an su etu d in e tua uel p aru itate nostra
V — V iterbens. Bibl. C apit. 44
dignissim um sum m u n u s a rb itra tu s — id hilari a me u u ltu ac iocunda
fronte suscipias, rogo— Platonis Euthyphronem, quo de ea parte iustitiae Plato D ionysio salutem [Ep. /]
quae ad d iu in a respicit (q u am q u e et ipse tu religiosissim e sem per in- C u m ego per id tem poris quo tarn diu apud uos agerem uestrum que
credjbili cum laude tu a coluisse perhibere) breui apud G raecos oratione p rin cip atu m gererem , eorum nem ini fide cedere existim arer, qui com-
20 sed luculente certe d isp u tatu r, studiis meis in latinam trad u ctu m linguam m odis a uobis et em olum entis afficerentur, grauis perm olestasque calum-
tuo nom ini dedicaui. Id autem si p e rp a ru m cuiquam u id eb itu r, scio 5 nias tolerabam . F u tu ru m enim sciebam ubi m ea consuetudine consensu-
nam q u e tuae m odestiae non u id eb atu r; ego tam en com m ode u n u m hoc que uterem in i, ut crudelius geri nihil p u ta re tu r. N am om nes qui uobis-
libenter et pro uirili m ea praestare potui, m aiora hoc tem pore haud cum ciuitatem adm in istran t mihi sunt testes qu am ego m ultos auxilio
potui. N am et illud etiam legim us non m inus inm ortali Deo hum ilis m eo liberarim d am no non m ediocri. C um saepe autem sum m a potestate
25 cuiusdam et u iduae m ulieris gratos habitos duos obolos qui pro uiribus utens u rbem uestram custodissem , m aiore ignom inia eiectus sum , et id
et sincere m entis affectu oblati essent qu am ingencia quoque reliqua et 10 qu id em a uobis ipsis, quam uel egenum q u em p iam ac m endicum dece-
precipsissim a m u n era. Q u in im o tan tu s est ipsius Platonis illustris sum- ret, nam qui tan tu m apud uos tem pus u ersatus essem , ut quam prim um
m ique philosophi ac tarn late terra[q u e] m ariq u e irradians splendor, ut en au ig arem iussistis. Ego autem posthac m ihi consulam q u odam deterio-
uel hom en ipsum im p erato riam q u a n d a m m aiestatem prae se ferre re m odo; tu uero, qui talis ty ran n u s sis, habitabis solus.
30 u id eatu r. Q u o d au tem m u n eris abs te cupio, p ater hum anissim e, id certe Id autem auri quod splendide ad com m eatum dederas, Baccheus tabel-
perm ag n u m est m ea sententia im prim isque p u lcherrim um et tua m agni- 15 larius ad te refert. N am neque uiaticum illud satis erat, neque ad aliam
ficentia qu am dignissim um : non enim qu ae P ersaru m illi reges uestes u itam conducebat, et quod cum tibi danti turn etiam accipienti mihi per-
au ru m arg en tu m gem m as et reliquas fortune fragilitates largiebantur m agnam esset infam iam allaturum ; itaque non accipio. T u a autem nihil
ipse cupio, sed tuum am orem cupio, caritatem cupio, dilectionem et refert, scilicet siue des tantum auri siue accipias. Q u am o b rem recipito et
beniuolentiam cupio. Id autem facillum um tibi factu, nam in te est ut aeque ac m ihi, alii am ico cuiquam gratificari. N am affatim m ihi grati-
 514 P A R T II TEXTS 515

20 ficatus es. Possum que illud E u ripidis o p p o rtu n e dicere, cum aliae tibi res Itaq u e de his satis. Echecrates et nunc nobis curae est, et in posterum
acciderint, erit turn tu a turn patris ipsius P hrynionis turn etiam sua ipsius adolescen-
Optabis talem tibi adesse uirum. tis causa.

M dnere etiam te illud uolo q uod alii plures tragici, cum a quopiam
tyr&nnum enecatum in tro d u c u n t, eu m clam ore lam en tari fingunt, 1 Inscriptio sic A : salutem om. V\ in marg. A manus alt. coeva Translatio Philelphi 5 iusserat
V 13 non in ras. A: pr] graece 14 deferamus V: xa-caXiproxvtiv graece 15 gerendam A]
25 Amicis orbatus, heu, miser pereo. regendam V 17 Phrymonis V
AuH autem inopem qui p eriret, nullus finxit. Et illud etiam poem a
P lato A ristodoro salutem . [Ep. X]
priidentes uiri haud inep tu m a rb itra n tu r,
A udio te D ioni et nunc esse et fuisse sem per tam beniuolum et am icum
Non aurum praeclarum illud quod rarissimum in perniciosa qu am qui m axim e, quodque sapientissim um tu u m in philosophia in-
malaeque spei uita, genium ei praestas: nam ego quidem et firm um hoc et fidum et sanum
30 Nec adamas nec argentei lectuli quae humano probantur generi,
Neque campestris atque latus ager grauibus sulcatus uomeribus esse dico ueram philosophiam . N am et alias et ad alia si tenderitis turn
ita sua fecunditate satis est, sapientias turn facultates, si u enustate appellarem , recte m ea sententia
Ut bonorum peritorumque uirorum intelligentia. nom inem . V erum et uale tu, et m ane in m oribus quibus nunc m anes.

V ale, et cum tan tu m in nos d elin q u eris, ut te in alium m eliorem

35 prdestes, cognoscito.
1 Inscriptio sic A: salutem om. V\ in marg. A manus alt. coaeua-. Translatio Philelphi 6 ap-
pellaro sic A 7 mane] ma sic V

1 Iiiscnptio sic A , salutem om. V\ in marg. A manus alt. coaeua: Translatio Philelphi 2-3
uestrum ... gererem om. V 4-5 calumnias /l] iniurias V: SiafloXa? gracce 9 uestram A]
nostram V: upetepav graece maiorum A 14-15 tabellarus sic V 17 T u ad ] tu V 18-19
Qu&mobrem id recipio et equeat mihi V amico alii V: alii amico A: ocXXov nva -ccov 30. Francisci Philelphi epistula de opinionibus philosophorum prim um
etai^wv graece 28 carissimum V edita fuit in volum ine eiusdem Epistolarii im pr. V enetiis anno 1502, ff.
22 Eurip. frag. 956, ed. von Arnim 25 Trag. Graec. Frag. Adesp., ed. Bergk, no. 150r-l51v. Q u am autem hie cu rau i ex codice a Philelpho scribi facto
347 28-33 Lyr. Graec. Frag. Adesp., ed. Nauck, no. 138 T riv u lzian o 873, ff. 263v-266v. De fontibus huius epistulae aliorum que
eiusdem affm ium operum latius m onuit J . K R A Y E in J W C I, t. X L II,
Plato A rchytae T a re n tin o salutem [E p. IX] a. 1979, ad pagg. 236-249.
A rchippi ac Philonidis fam iliares ad nos u e n e ru n t, et q uam eis episto­
lary dederas, attu le ru n t, et qu ae iusseras, n u n tia ru n t. Q u ae autem ad Franciscus Philelphus D om inico B arbadico H iero n y m i Filio salutem '
urbem a ttin eb an t, facile p ra e stite ru n t— neque enim eran t om nino diffici- p lu rim am dicit.
5 lia— quae autem iusseras, ex p o su eru n t nobis, aegre te ferre perm oleste- Ita m e tuis m odestissim is m oribus et hum anissim a consuetudine delec-
qu£ dicentes, quod negotio publico lib erari nequeas. Q u o d igitur in uita tasti praesens, D om inice B arbadice, ut cupiam etiam absentem adire te
iucundissim um est res suas agere, p raesertim si quis sibi in electione 5 per litteras et tecum persaepe aliquid com m entari, hac scilicet ratione, tu
rerjum ag en d aru m te ipsum im itetu r, p ro p em odum latet nem inem . Sed quoque m ihi cum responderis aliquid necessario praesens fies, eritque
illud quoque m em ineris opus est, n o stru m nem inem sibi n atu m esse, sed m u tu a haec inter nos litteraru m consuetudo et m ihi iucunda et tibi, ut
10 ortbs nostri partem p a tria m , p a rte m p arentes, p artem reliquos amicos arb itro r, non inutilis.
sibi u indicare, p erm u lta etiam tem p o rib u s q uibus n o stra occu p atu r uita Q u o d autem in praesentia se m ihi arg u m en tu m obtulit, idcirco ab
d ay d a sunt. Q u o d si p a tria ipsa ad rem publicam nos uocauit, p raeter 10 ideis est profectum , quod et proxim is diebus de iis erat nobis disputatio
offtcium forte sit non o b tem p erare; sim ul enim accidit u t etiam locum cum H ieronym o patre tuo grauissim o optim oque uiro, et om nem earn
deseram us im probis ho m in ib u s, qui non o p tim a m oti causa accedunt ad rationem , ut scis, Aristoteles contra P latonem refellere sophistice magis
15 gerendam rem publicam . agg red itu r qu am quod ita sentiret. Idque, ut m ea fert opinio, ob aliam
 516 P A R T II TE XTS 517

nullam rem fecit u ir doctissim us q u am ut X en ocraten condiscipulum et secundum rectam obseruationem intelligatur, sed secundum propor-
15 Platonicum ostenderet h aud ea nosse defendere quae Plato perm ulta tionem . Q uae uero ex his nata sunt, sensu et opinione uenire in cogni-
acut|issime inuenisset et subtilissim e disseruisset. A ristoteles enim non ae­ tionem . Prius igitur quam caelum fieret uerbi gratia eran t et idea et
quo anim o ferre p oterat quod X en o craten sibi p raelatum uideret a ceteris m ateria et deus boni m elioris conditor. Sed quoniam quod sit antiquius,
con<{liscipulis, qui eum in A cadem ia post Platonis obitum docere perinde 60 est eo m elius < q u a m > quod iunius sit, et item quod ordinem habeat
atqpe illius successorem uoluissent. U t igitur ostenderet indignum esse qu am quod caret ordine, deo qui bonus est, cum et m ateriam uideret ad-
20 X enocraten qui scholae Platonicae praeesset, cum alias plerasque m ittentem Ideam et alteratam om nifariam quidem , sed inordinate, opus
Platonis sententias rationesque d ep rau asset, turn illam in prim is quae de erat ut in ordinem earn ageret et ex indefinitis m u tatio n ib u s in definitam
ideis a P ythagora, qui Z oro astren secutus est, diuino excogitatam in- reduceret, quo discretiones corporum conuenirent neque fortuitu uteren-
genio tanto robore, ta n ta ui, ta n ta copia est com plexus et iis rationibus 65 tur. Fecit igitur hunc m u n d u m ex om ni m ateria, quern n atu rae term inum
persecutus, ut qui secus sentit, nihil om n in o sentire u id eatu r. V erbo sane fabricauit eius quod est, quoniam cetera om nia in se continet, unum
25 a Platone m agistro A ristoteles plu rib u s in locis u id etu r dissentire cum re un ig en itu m perfectum et anim atum et rationale. H aec enim m eliora sunt
ipsa m axim e o m nium cum illo co n u en iat. Q u o d eius rei non m ihi solum, inanim ato et irrationali et eundem fecit orbiculare 'corpus. Hoc enim
sed Boetio, sed Sim plicio, sed P orp h y rio aliisque non nullis uiris eruditis perfectius est aliis figuris. C um ergo uoluisset ex se gignere quiddam op-
et grauibus iure optim o u id etu r. 70 tim u m , fecit hunc m u n d u m , deum genitum , n u m q u am ab alio auctore
Et ne uerbis inanibus tem pus teram , b reu iter in m edium referam co rru m p en d u m quam ab deo, qui eum constituit, si quando et eum
50 Platonis sententiam de ideis, sed ita ut om nes intelligant non m odo ra- dissoluere decreuerit. E nim uero non est consentaneum ei qui optim us sit
tionem penitus, u eru m etiam ne nom en quidem a Platone inuentum ferri in corruptionem pulcherrim i nati; qui igitur talis sit, p erd u rat incor-
esse. Q uod, ut liquidius osten d am , uolo audias me interprete principium ru p tu s expersque interitus et is quidem beatus. Est autem eorum quae
eius libri qui a T im aeo Locro nobilissim o sim ul et antiquissim o Pvthago- 75 genita sunt optim us, quoniam ab optim o auctore est illo genitus, qui
reo De mundi ammo et natura inscriptus est. Sic enim incipit: “ T im aeus respicit non in m anufacta exem plaria, sed in ideam et in substantiam in-
35 Locfus haec ait: duas esse reru m u n iv ersaru m causas, m entem eorum telligibilem . Ad quam quidem quod factum est exam ussim ac perfecte,
quae ratione fiunt et necessitatem eo ru m quae h u n t ui secundum corpo- et p u lcherrim um et inem endabile fit. Perfectus uero est sem per secun­
rurri potestates. Sed ex his m en tem quid em esse causam n atu rae sum m i d um sensibilia, quoniam exem plar item illud ipsius, qui om nia in se con-
boni et nom inari deum ac prin cip iu m reru m o p tim aru m . Q uae uero cum 80 tinet intelligibilia anim alia, nihil exterius aliud reliquit, cum sit term inus
seq u u n tu r, turn sim ul sunt effectiua, ea referri in necessitatem . C u n cta intelligibilium absolutissim us, quem adm odum hie m u n d u s est sen-
40 autem esse Ideam , m ateriam et sensibile, quod ipsum sit tam q u am ex his sib iliu m .”
n atu m . A tque illud q u id em sem per esse et sine ortu et sine m otu idem- H aec ad uerb u m sunt T im aei Locri, qui non p aru o tem poris curriculo
que m anere et sui ipsius esse n a tu ra e , intelligibileque et eorum exem plar P latonem antecessit. Fuit enim Pythagorae au d ito r, qui cum et m athe-
quae fiunt, q u aecu n q u e sunt m utab ilia. H u iu sm o d i enim quiddam 85 m aticorum et physicorum et de uita Pythagorae praeclara com posuit
ideam et dici et intelligi. At m ateriam tan q u am im pressionem et ima- u o lum ina, turn etiam hunc librum cuius hoc p rincipium in L atinum con-
45 gin^m ac m atrem altricem que et genitricem esse tertiae substantiae. u ertim u s, De mundi animo ac natura, eruditissim e excogitatum in lucem
N am cum adm iserit sim ilitudines in seipsam et eas sibi tan q u am at- protulit. N on igitur Plato prim us aut ideam aut ideae rationem inuenit
trahens adm iscuerit, efficere hosce p artu s. M ateriam autem hanc perpe- om nem , sed earn acutissim e sapientissim eque a P ythagoreis inuentam et
tuatn esse dixit, nec earn tam en sine m o tu , uerum quae inform is per sese 90 pro b au it g rau iter et subtiliter confirm auit, adeo ut < a > T im aeo illo
et sine figura cum sit, om nem form am adm ittit. H anc uero in corporibus quem dixim us, librum ipse quern De mundi creatione elu cubrauit, Timaeum
50 sephrabilem esse et n a tu ra e illius alterius. Sed m ateriam appellant locum n om inari uoluerit. Sed prius quam de Platone loquar, exponam breuiter
et capacitatem . Itaque haec sunt duo principia, q u o ru m species quidem quid alii philosophi senserint de idea; ex huius enim definitione facile,
ratibnem habent et m aris et patris, at m ateria fem inaeque et m atris. T er- quid singuli uoluerint, dignoscetur. Non enim eadem ratione ac uia de
tia hero esse quae ex his n ascu n tu r. Sed haec tria cum sint, tribus item 95 hac om nes locuti sunt. N am fuere qui dicerent, ut P lutarchus narrat,
dignosci rebus. Ideam quidem ipsam cognosci m ente secundum scien- ideam esse substantiam incorpoream , quae licet ipsa per sese non existe-
55 tiarh. M ateriam autem cogitatione spuria, utpote quae nequaquam ret, form aret tam en inform is m aterias earu n d em q u e ap p aren tiu m esset
 518 P A R T II TE X TS 519

caUsa. Q u i uero a Zenone Stoici m a n a u e ru n t, aliud nihil ideas esse capientes o p era ilia p u lcherrim a relinquerentur? C o g itau eru n t ii quidem
uoluere qu am nostras notiones. A t Socrates et discipulus eius Plato ar- 140 speciem q u a n d a m et eq uorum et iuuenum perfectam atque praestantem
100 b itrati sunt ideas esse substantias a m a te ria separatas, quae per sese in ad cuius im itatio n em , quae facturi forent, retu leru n t. Idem arb itro r ac-
ipsius Dei intelligentiis im ag in atio n ib u sq u e existerent. A ristoteles autem cidisse P atrophilo, qui ingentem ilium atque exim ium eq u u m aeneum
quique A ristotelen Peripatetici sunt secuti ideas etiam ipsi po su eru n t, sed Iustin ian i tem poribus in urbe C onstantinopoli m irabili quad am excudit
eas n eq u aq u am a m ateria separatas. Q u o factum est ut alio usi fun- arte. N on enim au t C illarum au t A rium aliquem ante oculos habuit, ad
datnento ab A cadem icis u id e a n tu r discrepare. 145 q u o ru m sim ilitudinem tan tu m opus effingeret, sed sua cogitatione pro
105 H ae sunt sententiae quas prisci illi nobilissim ique philosophi de idea exem plari est usus. H uiusm odi autem notio et cogitatio nostra om nis,
nobis scriptas reliquerunt. Et q u a m q u a m ex ipsius T im aei Locri quae q u a m q u a m per sese non existit, utpote quae et o ria tu r et occidat,
scfipta in L atin u m transtulim us satis dilucide quid p er Ideam tenendum m aterias tam en inform is insignit form a effigieque figurat atque efficit ut
sit intelligi potest, tam en qu ia non om nes philosophi eadem ratione hac u id e a n tu r exterius. Q u am q u am si ideam quoque aliquid esse uolum us
de re disseru eru n t, ea u te m u r d istinctione ut aliter in deo, aliter in 150 quod oculis uideri possit, uidelicet, ut est in epistola L. A nnaei Senecae
110 hobiine ideam consyderare opo rteat. U t enim alia est d iu in a m ens, alia ad L ucillium , exem plar quoddam ad quod aspiciens artifex operatur
h u m an a, ita de Idea quoque alia et alia est ratio. N am et Z enonii et ii q u id q u id o p eratu r, d iu in a tam en cognitio non est illud, ad quod aspicit
orrimes qui d ix eru n t Ideam esse su b stan tiam incorpoream , quae licet ipsa deus, sed id potius quo aspicit. Itaque om nino longe secus in deo fit
p ef sese non existeret, inform is tam en m aterias fo rm aret causaque esset q u am in artifice, ut et Plato docet et ueritas. S unt enim ideae, quod
ut eae ap p areren t, idem m ihi u id e n tu r sentire uoluisse quod m ultis post 155 m odo diceb atu r, substantiae a m ateria separatae quae p er sese in ipsius
115 annis M arcus A ntonius cum de perfecto lo q u eretu r oratore tra d itu r dix- sum m i dei intelligentiis im aginationibusque existunt.
isse in q uodam libro quern u n u m m oriens reliquit scriptum , se disertos Sed hac ipsa de re oportere arb itro r paulo esse dilucidius disserendum ,
uidisse m ultos, at eloquentem om n in o n em inem . C u m T acitu s enim u eru m non pluribus q uam epistolae ratio postulat. Idea sane ab e!8o<;
setu m ille m ente uersaret qualis is esse d eberet o ra to r cui nihil addi ad descendit. Idos autem hoco loco, si uelim us uerb u m e uerbo exprim ere,
pdrfectionem quiret, reperiebat nem in em prorsus quem eloquentiae 160 speciem significat. At speciem et form am significare idem in Topicis suis
120 ncimine dignum existim aret. N am , q u am eloquentiae speciem anim o ostendit C icero. Q u o d si m aiim us, id quod saepenum ero uiri docti et ex-
cogitans ueluti uidebat, effigiem eius cum ad au riu m iudicium referret, culti facere co n suerunt, sententiam sequi quam dictionem , non ‘ra-
intelligebat frustra q u em q u am e uiuis eloquentiae sibi laudem uendicare. tio n e m ’ ideam m inus in terp retab im u r quam et ‘speciem ’ et ‘form am ’,
Idem quoque de optim o poeta sensisse u id etu r Iuuenalis noster his ut sint ideae principales quaedam rationes per sese in m ente diuina ex-
uersibus: 165 istentes. Q u a m quidem sententiam , si m ihi liceret aliter quam ecclesia
125 Sed uatem egregium, cui non sit publica uena, no stra iam receperit in terp retari, secutum dicerem Io h an n em Euangelis-
qui nil expositum soleat deducere, nec qui tam , cum in E uangelii sui principio G raece reliquit scriptum ita ad lit-
communi feriat carmen triuiale moneta, teram , ‘In principio erat ratio, et ratio erat penes deum , et deus erat
i hunc, qualem nequeo monstrare et sentio tantum, ratio, et om n ia p er ipsam facta sunt, et sine ipsa factum est nihil’, ut
anxietate carens animus facit.
170 ostenderet scilicet u ir sapientissim us nihil tem ere, nihil fortuitu factum
130 Ait enim acutissim us poeta Iuuenalis qu em egregium perfectum que esse, sed om n ia pro ratione atque intellectu diuinae substantiae. Aoyo<;,
ppetam nequit m onstrare ullum , h u n c, ut caetera p raeteream , quae locu- Logos, enim apud G raecos et rationem significat et orationem . U nde
pletandae m ateriae causa interserit, m entis sensu d u n tax at qualem esse sunt et D em osthenis et orato ru m aliorum orationes, hoc est Xoyot, logi,
oporteat, percipere. et an im alia rationaiia, id est Xoytxd, logica, et an im u m Plato in tris distri-
N onne idem de opificibus usu u en ire cognoscim us? N um putem us uel 175 buit p artes, in rationem , qui Xoyo<;—logos— dicitur, et in uigorem
135 Praxitelen uel P h i d < i > a n , cum duos illos equos m arm oreos et iuuenes iracundiae qui anim ositas est, 0upo<;, thym os G raece appellatus, et in
item duos factos e m arm ore quos m ira m ag n itudine atque pulchritudine cu p id itatem . Et hanc quidem subter praecordia positam esse docuit, ut
ab illis elaboratos uel hac tem pestate in u rb e R om a intueri licet, aliquos an im ositatem in corde et rationem in cerebro. Recte igitur ac uero scrip­
esse exterius contem platos uel equos uel adolescentis, unde sim ilitudinem tum legim us a uiro non doctissim o m inus q uam sanctissim o ‘In principio
>80 erat ratio, et ratio erat penes d e u m ’. N on enim scripsit “ a p u d ” , quod
 520 P A R T II TE XTS 521

est rtapa, para, sed Tzpo<;, pros, quod significat “ p e n e s.” Aliud enim b itra b a tu r. At in rebus caelestibus cum et pu ram et sim plicem et sum m am
significam us, cum dixerim us am icus m eus est ap u d m e, et aliud si ueritatem diu in am substantiam iudicaret, qui hanc non intelligeret, huic
dicardus m eus seruus est penes m e, hoc est in potestate m ea, id quod de 225 nom en sapientiae conuenire nullo m odo p u tab at. E t existim o sane idem
amicb dicere, cum non liceat, ilium “ a p u d m e ” esse dicim us, hoc est de uiro sapienti accidere Platoni potuisse, quod M arco A ntonio de elo-
185 “ dorhi m e a e .” quenti et de poeta Iuuenali paulo ante m em inim us. N am cum insideret
C dnuenientius fortasse qu isq u am in te rp re te tu r in eo Iohannis Euange- in Platonis m ente perfecta quaedam atque excellentissim a sapientiae
lio “ In principio erat ra tio ” qu am “ u e rb u m ” . S unt enim ideae prin- species, q u am , etsi re ipsa uidebat in nem ine, qualem tam en esse
cipales, q uaedam reru m rationes, qu ae d iu in a intelligentia continentur, 230 o p o rteret, anim o cernebat, satis declarare uisus est quid desyderaretur in
et eae quidem stabiles atque incom m utabiles quae cum form atae non sapiente, cum non ignoraret quidquid esset, de quo ratione et uia quaere-
190 sint, sed aeternae eodem que m odo h ab en tes sem per, utpote quae neque retu r, id redigi oportere ad ultim am q u an d am form am atque speciem sui
o ria n tu r neque occidant. S ecundum eas ta n tu m , ait P lato, form are om ­ generis. C om prehensam ergo habebat atque perceptam anim o earn sa-
nia quae ortui sunt in teritu iq u e subiecta. U t illae igitu r rationes, hoc est pientis form am cui nil deesset ad intelligentiam id earu m , cum illam certe
ideae, quae n u m q u am h abuere p rin cip iu m , finem hab itu rae sunt num - 235 u ideret in nem ine.
quam , ita cetera quae n a sc u n tu r ea in terire n a tu ra om n ia fluere labi, nec R ecte igitur Paulus Apostolus, cum de hac intelligentia loquitur qua
195 diutiiis esse posse uno atq u e eodem statu d e m o n stratu r. Q uis igitur fuerit d iu in am co n tem plam ur substantiam , ad tertium sese usque caelum rap-
tantai uel im pietate uel am en tia, ut negare au d eat deum pro ab- tum affirm at, perinde atque interiore m entis sincerioreque acum ine
solutissim a sum m aque ratione o m n ia condidisse? Nec tarn usque adeo d iuinae illi atque ineffabili intelligentiae cohaereret. N on enim corporis
stulti! sim us, ut censeam us an im alia q u ae ratio ne carent, sicuti aquilam 240 oculis deum intueri cuiquam licet, sed cunctis sordibus defaecatae atque
leonem delphinum ceteraque hu iu sm o d i, creata esse eadem ratione qua pu rg atae et nitidae m entis lum inibus. Id qui assequi uult (quis autem
200 hom inem , qui rationis est et intelligentiae particeps. Q u id enim aliud uelle non debet?), huic est om ni cura, om ni opera, om ni studio, omni
nobis significat deum t'ecisse h o m in em ad im aginem et sim ilitudinem denique ind u stria ann iten d u m ut sese uendicet sibi cogatque, ut pro-
suam ? Idea sem per h abet eodem m odo sicut esse su b stantia ipsa, et ut stratis ac uictis cunctis anim i pertu rb atio n ib u s m ens sua om nis libera ac
deus est d iuinae substantiae, ita q u o q u e u n am esse ideam concedam us 245 sui com pos cum m ente diuina, unde creationem atque splendorem uim-
oportet; in causa uero sunt aliae atq u e aliae rationes reru m secundum que om nem accepit et ratiocinandi et intelligendi, conueniat ab eaque
205 idearh p ro d u ctaru m , ut ideas etiam p lurali n u m ero nom inem us. n u sq u am discedat. N am ita qui fecerit, certo speran d u m est ut in-
N bn enim exem pli gratia latere nos debet q u a idea orbis terrae produc- telligibili illo circum fusus sim ulque illustratus sum m ae sapientiae lum ine
ta est! rotu n d itas, eadem q u oque et pilae et oculi et alias pluris productas cernat uim ipsam n atu ram q u e ideae.
esse ro tu n d itates, q u are negari non potest q u in singula rerum genera 250 Et huius quidem ideae inuentor om nium p rim us, quotquot aut in
propriis rationibus sint p ro d u cta. H u iu sm o d i autem rationes, si m inus Ionica aut in Italica claruissent philosophia, Pythagoras fuisse
210 fuerint in m ente d iu in a, certe n u sq u a m e ru n t, tan q u am adeo simus p erh ib etu r. Secutus is quidem Z oroastren, qui bellum T ro ian u m , ut
hebeti saxeaque ingenii acie, ut deu m a rb itre m u r intueri solitum P lu tarch u s refert, annis quinque m illibus antecessit. Pythagoras enim ut
hom inem q u em q u am un iu ersalem a u t aliud q u icq u am huiusm odi extra ceteros om nis suae tem pestatis hom ines form ae uen u state atque prae-
se pqsitum , quoad illud exem plar au t hom inem aut aliud quod in- 255 stan tia m irifice adeo antecelluit, ut pro A polline h ab eretu r, ita diuina
tendbbat p roduceret. S unt ig itu r hae species, hae form ae, hae rationes q u ad am ingenii bonitate atque sciendi studio cunctis m ortalibus superior
215 quas Ideas dicim us in m ente d iu in a ubi, cum nihil esse possit nisi aeter- fuit. Q u a p ro p te r, ubi uniuersam peragrasset E u ro p am quo undique
num [ nisi incom m utabile, nisi ex om ni parte perfectum , consequens est q u id q u id scitu dignum an im ad u erteb at acciperet, ductus tandem illustri
ut eajs rationes et perfectas esse f'ateam ur et incom m utabilis et aeternas. fam a sacerdotum atque prophetarum A egyptiorum profectus in Aegyp-
In his uero ideis.tantam uim inesse conuincit Plato, ut nisi his perceptis 260 turn, ubi sim ul cum lingua om nem illorum sapientiam didicisset, illud
a tq u t intellectis nem o sapiens esse possit. Et enim Plato, ut erat diuina etiam intelligere uisus est, Aegyptios exim iam om nem disciplinam a
220 quad am ingenii acrim onia, co n te m p la b a tu r aliquem cui nihil deesset ad M agis, qui a Z oroastre fluxerunt, hausisse. Q u are ad C haldaeos se con-
sapi^ntiam , quam positam n orat et c o n stitu tam in ipsius ueri perspicien- tulit, quo et C haldaeos audiret qui astrologiae gloria hab eb an tu r in-
tia quod ex m era atque sincaera reru m caelestium cognitione constare ar- signes, et M agis quos apud illos uersari acceperat congrederetur.
 522 P A R T II TEXTS 523

265 M ag o ru m igitur d iu tu rn a usus co n su etu d in e non obscure intelligere 150-153 Seneca E p . LXV, 7 160-161 Cicero, T o p . 7.30 168-169 Jo. 1:1-3 174-177
Plato, R e p . IV, 435A sqq. 214-217 s. Augustinus, D e d iu . q u a e s t. XLVI, 2 236-238 2
uisus est u n u m Z oroastren P ersen, ut an d q u issim u m philosophorum Cor. 12:2 250-271 Plutarchus, D e I s i d e e t O s i n d e 369E; Diogenes Laertius, I, prol.
om nium , ita etiam acutissim um sap ien tissim u m que fuisse. Q u are ex ilia 272-276 ibid., III.8
hora Zoroastris philosophiam am plexus est. Q u am postea Plato quoque
Pythagoreis usus et au cto rib u s et do cto rib u s est secutus. M a n a ru n t in-
270 quam ab ipso usque Z o roastre philosopho quae sap ien ter et peracute de
Ide$. scripta a Platone referu n tu r.
Ltegimus enim P latonem in u n iu e rsa philosophia tris quosdam secu-
tum esse philosophos: in rebus ciuilibus Socraten, at in iis quae sensibus
su b p ciu n tu r, H eraclitum , in rebus u ero illis quae ad intelligentiam et res
275 diuinas spectant, P ythagoran h unc S am iu m , qui philosophiae Italicae et
pripceps fuit et auctor. Q u i q u id em P y th ag o ras, q u a n ta f'uerit sapientia,
illud est perspicuum a rg u m e n tu m , q u o d seipsum nosset. U tpote qui
rogatus a Leonte P hliasiorum ty ran n o quern se esse p ro fiteretu r, ea usus
est fnodestia ut non se resp o n d eret sapien tem esse, hoc est crocpov, sophon,
280 quqd plerique om nes ante ilium dicere co n su eru n t, sed philosophum ,
quod sapientiae studiosum significat. P y th ag o rae autem unius auctoritas
tan ta apud om nes fuit, ut om ni subtilissim a ratione et firm ior hab eretu r
et locupletior, ut satis esset eius in u e n ta disciplinam que tuentibus
respondere disserentibus co n tra, “ Ipse d ix it’’, hoc est, Pythagoras.
285 H abes a nobis breui com pendio c o m m en tatio n em de Idea platonica,
D om inice B arbadice, non a b d itam , u t m ihi u id etu r, nec obscuram nec
sophisticam , sed m eram potius ac sim plicem et ut res habet, ex qu a ipsa
tibi non difficile est cognitu et q u o m o d o Id ea subsistens in dei m ente ca-
p iu n d a sit et quo item pacto in m en te h u m a n a o rtu i in terituique subiec-
290 ta. R eliquum est ut u n am tibi tu an te oculos sem per ueluti Ideam pro-
ponas u iru m sapientissim um atq u e o p tim u m , H iero n y m u m Bar-
badicum , p atrem tu u m , cuius si grauissim os honestissim osque m ores ac
uitam u niuersam sequi im itariq u e in stitu eris, nulla tibi alia, neque
Platonis nec P ythagorae nec Z oroastris nec alius cuiusquam disciplinae
295 opus fuerit, non ad intelligendum m odo, sed ne ad bene quidem beate-
que u iu en d u m . Q uod ut facias te etiam atq u e etiam hortor. Vale.
Ex M ediolano Idibus A prilibus a n n o a natali christiano millesimo
quadrin g en tesim o sexagesim o q u a rto .

55 spuria] sparia s ic M S : g ra e c e vo0co 67 rationalem M S 86 turn] eum M S 126 nil

J u v e n a lis ]
nihil M S 288 quomodo] qui M S

13-24 Diogenes Laertius V, 2-3 34-82 Timaeus Locrus, cap. 1-11, ed. Marg (editio
maior), pp. 118-122 84-86 Suidae Lex., ed. Bekker, p. 1028A, s. v. 95-98 ps.
Plutarch. D e p l a c i t i s p h ilo s o p h o r u m 1.9.10, ed. Diels, D o x . g r a e c . , pp. 308-309 114-117
Cicero, O r a l ., cap. 18 117-120 Tacitus, D i a l . , passim 125-129 Juvenalis VII.53-57
 A U G U S T IN U S D A T U S U B E R T U S D E C E M B R IU S

31. A ugustini D ati Senensis praefatio in suam uersionem libelli Platoni 32. U b erti hexam etri aliquot quos praebent plerique codices u n a cum
ascripti qui Halcyon d icitur. Ex editione principe eiusdem D ati operum , versione C h rysoloriana Platonis librorum De re publica. Q uos curaue-
im pr. Senis anno 1503, f. C C L X X IIIIr. ru n t 'B O R S A (1893a), p. 203 ex codice autographo A m brosiano, et
2G A R IN (1955), p. 341, ex cod. L aurentiano.
Fidi G raecaru m litteraru m interp retis A ugustini D ati Senensis
praefatio in trad u ctio n em P latonis De halcyone ave ad A lexandrum
theolpgum peregregium ac u enerabilem religiosum ordinis praedi-
catorum . 33. Prologi U b erti in Platonis libros De re publica a C hrvsolora latine
5 Ex m agno philosophorum n u m ero qui priscis tem poribus claru eru n t, redditos eodem U berto ad iu u an te uersionem prim itiua'm cu rau eru n t ‘ex
pater A lexander, unus A ristocrates, qui et Plato postea cognom inatus parte G A R IN (1955), pp. 343-344, ex codice L au rentiano; et 2integre
est, et a u eritate et a C h ristia n a religione propius abfuit. M u lta saepe de ex eodem codice Franciscus A D O R N O , in Studi in onore di Antonio Cor-
deo deque diuinis rebus pie religioseque disseruit, ac p erraro usquam sano, im pr. Barii a. 1970, pp. 9-11.
locutus est q uin de divini num inis m aiestate serm onem inferret. Itaque
0 et A ugustinus noster C h ristian i q u id am im p erato r exercitus tan tu m A — A m bros. A 96 inf.
Platotii trib u it ut eum ceteris eruditis ac sapientibus uiris praeferat. Sed B — Berolin. occidentalis Bibl. N at. Lat. fol. 614
quid m irum cum Sim plicianus A u g u stin u m la u d au erit quod potissim um L — L au r. 89 sup. 50
in Platonicorum libris inciderit in q uibus om nibus m odis disseretur N — N eapol. Bibl. N at. V III G 51, olim G asp. Barzizzae
< d e u s > atque eius u erb u m ? Itaq u e ego his causis com m otus iucun- O — O tto b . lat. 2050
5 dissinae Platonis scripta legere consueui. N u p er uero forte fo rtu n a libel- R — R egin. lat. 1131, olim G u arini V eronensis
lus oblatus est qui H alcyon scrib itu r, cuius non tarn fabella captus sum
quam probaui potius p u lch errim u m com m enti m ysterium in quo splen- Prologus in Platone De repubhca uiri spectabilis et egregrii U berti
dide Sane C h aerep h o n tis in terro g atio n e et responsione Socratis de im ­ D ecem bris de V igleuano tunc ducalis secretarii qui hunc librum de
m ense sum m i atque aeterni principis potestate disseritur. H oc ego G raeco tran stu lit in L atinum .
0 opusculum , cum p u tarem n u sq u am ap u d nostros in u en iri, u n a lucubra- Platonis C iceronisque libros, quos am bo de republica conscripsere, in
tione L atinum feci et ad te m ittere constitui, ut qui optim us es agen- hoc equidem scripsit differre M acrobius Sommi com m entarius Scipionis,
dorurh praeceptor, sis etiam scrip to ru m censor. Accipe igitur p aru u m quod Plato rem publicam o rd in au it quo ordine scilicet tractan d am esse
m unus et (ut u id etu r) em enda. C o n sid era au tem non ineptam fortasse censeret, qualiter autem a m aioribus fuerit in stituta C icero, ut asseritur,
interp retatio n em u e rb o ru m , sed m agis quae intus clau d itu r senten- accuratissim e d isputauit. H oc equidem unus decern, sex uero reliquus
5 tiarurp grau itatem . H abes tu prim us in te rp retatio n u m m earum distinxit operibus. In quo autem Platonem C icero fuerit im itatus, quid-
prim itias. Alia posthac ten tab im u s fortasse m aiora. V ale. que operi suo addiderit, correxerit, uel m u tau erit, m aioribus nostris
G raecae L atinaeque disciplinae doctis esse poterat, non am bigo, manifes-
tu m . N u n c uero hisque tem poribus protinus est ignotum . C u m enim seu
7 proprius ed. 14 deus supplevi ex AugusUno 24-25 sententiam ed. negligentia et incuria seu m agistrorum inopia seu litteraru m L atinarum
copia fortassis atque splendore G raecae notitia disciplinae paulatine
6 Arisfoclem’ habet Diogenes Laertius, III.2; vid. etiam Seneca Ep. 58.30; Apuleius De
Platone \ A : Servius In Verg. Aen. V I.668, ed. Thilo-Hagen, 2: 93 12-14 s. Augustinus,
desierit, Platonis Reipublicae uolum ina, nisi alicuius translata ingenio uisa
Con/. VI11.2 sint, quod quidem antehac uidisse aut audiuisse non m em ini, neque legi
neque nostris se subici lum inibus potuere. Si quae uideri etiam et perlegi
potuissent, non supererat tam en de C iceronis operibus iudicare, quae
 52d P A R T II TEXTS 527

q u o ad rem spectat politicam , excepta p articu la Somnii Scipionis de qua utilia honestaque regim ina firm atis bonis m oribus atque legibus
su p ra n a rra u i, p lurim o iam exacto tem p o re periere. flecterentur. In hac enim sua reipublicae dispositione iustitiam eiusque
N o stra au tem n unc p rim u m aetate fiet P latonis Politico m anifesta. operatores potissim e com m endando h o m inum que pectoribus infunden-
O p ere enim atque in d u stria clarissim i M ed io lani ac L ig u ru m prim i ducis do, cuius o b seru an tia praeterm issa, nil sincerum nil ualidum neque
Ioannis G aleaz V icecom itis com itisque u irtu tu m nec non B ononiae Pisa- 65 stabile d iutius asserit perm an ere. Ipsius uero custodibus reique publicae
ru m S en aru m P erusiique dom ini celeberrim i, qui in ter cetera gesta seruatoribus, post h u m a n a suffragia exacta, u ita corporea m ulto plura et
am pla et m agnifica, ned u m fam osissim os orbis uiros si q ui uspiam d iu tu rn io ra uitae alterius praem ia pollicetur, alto ingenio sum m aque
p o tu e rin t rep eriri, sed o m n iu m in su p er lib ro ru m et u o lu m in u m genera u e rb o ru m ac sen ten tiaru m uen u state, haec om nia in uolum inibus istis
in q uibus uiri praestantissim i atq u e sanctissim i G raeco ru m atque profundissim e ore Socratico disserendo, cum non solum in his sed et in
Latjinorum sua alm a et d iu in a in g en ia re liq u eru n t, m axim o studio con- 70 aliis libris suis serm one dialogico u t facilius ueritas u id eretu r Socratem
gerere lab o rau it m ultosque iam u elu ti alto et procelloso pelago naufra- eius praeceptorem u iru m q u e doctissim um sem per induxerit
gium passos et paene subm ersos aliosque q u o tq u o t fuit possibile reperiri disp u tan tem .
pripceps h um anissim us in p o rtu m salutis accepit sacratissim oque ar-
mapio collocauit, ubi nunc u acat ta n to ru m u iro ru m ingenia siderei
pietate principis contem plari. 1-3 T i t u l u s s ic in 0 ; m a l im Platonis: Uberti Decembris de Vigleuano prologus in Platone
De republica B L N : o m . A R 5 m a l im commentator 6 scilicet o m . A tractanda A 10
Platonis tandem De republica tran slatio de G raeco in L atin u m per ui- correxit R 11 ambiguo A 12 seu o m . B 13 et] seu B Latinarum litterarum tr a m p .
ru m insignem et praestan tis ingenii E m m an u elem C h rysoloram de Con- A B fortassis o m . R 14 paulatine A/5’5] m a l im paulatim (q u o d leg. p e r p e r a m G a r in , A d o r ­
stantinopoli m eum que G raecae litterae fam osissim um praecep to rem feli- no) 17 luminibus subici B 18 superat 0 21 Platonis o m . A N 22 enim] namque B ,
f o r t , e x re d a c t, p o s te r io r i 22 Ligurium L : Ligurius B 23 Vicecomitis comitisque]
citQr extitit consu m m ata. V e ru m q u ia p o stm odum lin g u aru m u arietate Vicecomitis qu(a)e L R 23-24 Bononiae Pisarum Senarum Perusiique B , f o r t, ex redact,
u e rb u m ex uerbo red d itu m nim is in cu ltu m ac dissonum u id eb atu r, ne ex p o s t . ] Bononiae Pisarum et Perusii L : Pisarum Senarum et Perusii N O R 24 tot p o s t
hoc tan ti uiri facundia L atinis in cu ltio r litteris red d eretu r, uisum est cetera B , f o r t , ex re d a c t, p o s t. 25 qui uspiam] usquam B 26 potuerit 0 27 atque] ac
pulchrius atque u enustius, C alcidii et cetero rum exem plo ad consonan- A 31 humanis L : humanius R , u t u id . 32 uacarit A 34-35 insignem uirum 0 38 ne]
non R 51-52 Atheniensem ... timocraticam o m . B 53 ad p r i u s o m . 0 55 aegre] ergo
tiam dictionibus collocatis, nec a P lato n is m ente discedere et lectoris 0 57 opponere R 59 immaniora] in maiora A 60 uereretur L 65 diutius] diu B -
an im u m , serm onis in concinnitate su b lata, orationis qu alicu m q u e dulce- que o m . B L 56 suffragia A L N O R , p o s t co rr. B ] naufragia p r i m . m a n . B 67 uitae alt. p o s t
dine consolari. Q uod equidem in his u o lu m inibus, p raeceptore meo praemia B 69 et] etiam A 70 suis o m . B
iubente et postm odum a p p ro b an te, ad posse facere p ro cu rau i, nulla a 4-9 Macrobius, I n s o m n . S c ip . 1.1, ed. Willis, p. 1
platonicis uerbis u arietate p rorsus ad h ib ita , nisi in q u a n tu m plerum que
no p n u lla dissonantia u id e b a n tu r, qu ae licet in G raeca forent sonantissi-
ma| disciplina, L atin a tam en o ratio n e ta n tu m u ocabulorum disciplinae-
que potest uarietas, nihil au t fere m odicum perso n ab an t. 34. R edactionem alteram eiusdem prologi, m an u P etri C an d id i et a se,
l i t ad P latonem autem de quo n u n c a g itu r redeam us, talem ac tantam u t u id etu r, factam , c u ra u e ru n t ex parte et G A R IN et A D O R N O , ibid.,
taq to q u e o rdine rem publicam stabilisse p rim a fronte nulla alia ratione redactorem au tem non indicantes. E xtat in cod. A m bros. B 123 sup.
considero q u am quod aristocraticam A theniensem felicioribus forte
m aio ru m auspiciis atque legibus co n d itam politiam ad tim ocraticam , S eq u itu r prologus eiusdem [U berti D ecem brii]
deijnde ad oligarchicam et su b in d e, crescente in dies m alitia, ad P latonis C iceronisque libros, quos am bo D e republica conscripsere, in
dem o craticam et forte ipsius ad ty ra n n id e m tem poribus u id erat perue- hoc dixit differre M acrobius Somnii co m m en tato r Scipionis, quod Plato
nisse. Q u o d equidem aegre ferens p a tria e u rbis statu m et iustitiae cuius rem publicam o rd in au it quo ordine tractan d a esse censeret, C icero autem
sem per feruentissim us zelator ex titerat m iseratus excidium , tan q u am 5 qualiter a m aioribus foret institu ta disseruit. H oc quidem unus decern,
aegro corpori et m orti iam proxim o m edicam m an u m apponere cogita- sex vero reliquus distinxit operibus. In quo autem P latonem C icero fuerit
uit. U t, et si ciuium suorum m entes longa ineruditionis consuetudine im itatus, q u idque operi suo ad d id erit, correxerit uel m u tau erit,
deflectere non ualeret, saltern ad im m a n io ra procedere, au d ita ratione m aioribus nostris G rece L atin eq u e lingue doctis esse p oterat, non am-
co n g ru a, u e re re n tu r, aut boni et decori im agine ipsi ceterique populi ad big[u]o, m anifestum . N unc vero hisque tem poribus penitus est ignotum .
 528 P A R T II TEXTS 529

Siue enim scriptorum inopia atq u e desidia, seu L atine lingue copia i'or- [Lib. I] Platonis De republica siue De iustitia liber p rim us incipit feliciter.
tassis atque splendore, G rece discipline p eritia p aulatim desierit, Platonis In quo serm one dialogico introducit Socratem p raeceptorem suum in
volum ina nisi alicuius ingenio tra n sla ta visa sint, quod equidem me P irea in dom o C ephali Lisaniae cum Polem arco et T h rasv m ach o et aliis
antefrac vidisse aut audisse non m em ini, neq u e legi neque nostris oculis plu rib u s de iustitia disp u tan tem .
subitp potuere. Q ue si etiam videri p o tuissent, non su p ererat tam en de
5 [Lib II] ... incipit secundus, in quo co n tra iusticiam G lauco et
Cicej-onis operibus iudicare, que q u o ad rem spectat politicam , Somnu Sci-
A d im an tu s A ristonis filii Socrati acerrim e co n trad icu n t, quibus Socrates
pioni$ particula excepta, m ulto iam exacto tem pore periere.
respondendo dispositiones optim e o rd in at ciuitatis pro indagatione
N ostra autem nunc p rim u m etate fiet Platonis Politico m anifesta opere
iustitie et aliarum u irtu tu m .
atque in dustria viri conspicui atq u e erud itissim i E m anuelis C hrysolore
m eique in G recis litteris preceptoris celeberrim i, qui cum m ulta e Grecis [Lib. Ill] ... incipit tertius, in quo Socrates circa m usicam et gym-
disciplinis sum m o ingenio sin g u lariq u e d o ctrin a traducere curasset, hos H) nasticam in stru en d u m iudicat sue populum ciuitatis, co n tra poetas max-
etiaro perillustres P latonis libros n e u tiq u a m nostros latere voluit, sed eos im e disserendo, qui m endacia et figm enta p lu rim a trad id eru n t.
e G reco in L atin u m tran stu lit. C e te ru m q u ia verbum ex verbo redditum
nim is incultum et inep tu m v id eb atu r, ne tanti viri facundia doctis [Lib. IV] ... incipit q u artu s, in quo Socrates, data responsione
hom inibus incom pta red d e re tu r, visum est C aicidii exem plo ceterorum - A dim anto de felicitate publica ciuitatis, de unione suam laudat m axim e
25 que fid consonantiam trad u ctis d ictionibus in m elius conuertere, nec ciuitatem , diuisionem aliarum om nium im p ro b an d o , deque custodum
tam en ab auctoris m ente discedere et lectoris an im u m qualicunque ver- 15 diligentia et bona eruditione, quidque p u tat esse iusticiam , ac de tribus
borum dulcedine consolari. Q u o d im prim is preceptore meo iubente pro gu b ern atio n e ciuitatis et hom inum m axim e necessariis.
atque ap p ro b an te pro virili ef'ficere conatus sum , nulla v erborum im m u- [Lib. V] ... incipit q u in tu s, in quo Socrates a serm one incepto ab
tatiope facta nisi in q u a n tu m lingue nostre concinnitas id optare A d im an to distractus com pellitur de u iro ru m et m u lieru m conubiis et
30 videbatur. Erit igitur hoc opus su u m suaque vigilia ac labore, cura p u ero ru m n u tritio n e disserere, probans fore possibile ciuitatem quam
dem um nostra non ignotum L atinis M usis hisque potissim um qui eius- 20 condidit esse ac fieri dum m odo contingat philosophos principare, et quos
cemoeli studiorum lectione d electan tu r. Q u ib u s vero alienus labor non intelligit esse philosophos dicit.
ingratus est, nec iis in d u stria nostra inuisa esse p oterit, si m odo non im-
probi et virtutis hostes illi fuerint. N am cum difficile adm odum sit [Lib. V I] ... incipit sextus, in quo Socrates p redicta de uero ostendit
35 aliorum verba atque sentencias in p ro p riu m vsum lin g u am q u e deducere, philosopho, n a tu ra m docens philosopham , causasque dicens propter
turn cjifficillimum longe existim o si que ab hom ine G rece lingue dum tax- quas philosophi pleru m q u e ad regim en cen sean tu r inutiles, et ex quibus
at peptissim o tran slata sint, ea nos ab illo su m p ta in L atin u m con- 25 philosophic calum nia o riatu r. Sed quod ueri philosophi sunt ad regen-
uerterim us. d u m aptissim i, et in quibus sunt philosophi etatibus sum endi, et dem um
Finit prologus U b erti D ecem brii. de bono p er sim ilitudinem solis ad uisum quern boni n atu m nom inat, ac
de uisibili et intelligibili per im aginem .

[Lib. V II] ... incipit septim us, in quo Socrates de eruditione et in-
11 Platonis ex Plato corr. manus pnma 12 quod add. j . j . 16 dumtaxat post particula del.
18 viri ... eruditissimi bis scr. post Chrysolore, sed del. 34 sit add. s.s. M S 36 existima 30 eru d itio n e ac de uisu et intelligibili per im aginem ostendit, et quod bone
MS; sed uid. redact, pnmam 37 peritissimus Garin n a tu re uiri sunt cogendi lum en inspicere u eritatis, postea reliquos guber-
n are, q u o d q u e ueritatis cognitio m axim e p er arism etricam , geom etriam ,
2-6 Macrobius, In somn. Scip. 1.1, ed. Willis, p. 1
pro fu n d itatis au g u m en tu m , astronom iam , et d em u m per dialecticam
p ercip itu r.

35 [Lib. V III] ... incipit octauus, in quo Socrates agit de q u attu o r

35. U berti arg u m en tu la in singulos libros Platonis De republica, ciuilitatibus prim o prepositis, scilicet tim ocratica, oligarchica, dem ocra-
hactenus inedita. Q u ae cu rau i iuxta fidem codicis auto g rap h i A m bros. tica, atq u e tirannica, et de uiris ipsarum ciuilitatum singulis com paratis
B 123 sup. atq u e conform ibus.
 530 P A R T II

[Lib. IX ] ... incipit norm s, in quo Socrates agit de u ita tiran n ica, et
40 prim o de necessariis et non necessariis u o lu p tatib u s, et de differencia in ­
ter ciuitatem tira m p n iz a ta m et alias ciuilitates, et de uiris sim iliter P E T R U S C A N D ID U S D E C E M B R IU S
ciuitatibus sim ilatis, m axim e de tiran n ico , et que m elior sit— cupiditas
philosophic, honoris, au t lu cri— et h u iu s du b ietatis decisio. 37. Francisci Pizolpassi epistulam m issionis codicibus Platonis librorum
[Lib. X ] ... incipit decim us feliciter, in quo Socrates d isp u tat contra De republica a Petro C an d id o L atine red d ito ru m plerum que insertam
45 poetas pictoresque et om nes im itatiu o s p robans ipsos n im iu m a ueritate cu rau eru n t 1 W . L. N E W M A N , English Historical Review, anno 1905,
dispedere, subinde disserens de p rem iis iustis et iniustis propositis in hac pp. 496-498 iuxta perfidiam codicis D unelm ensis; et 2ex parte G A R IN
uita et in alia, de im m o rtalitate an im e, deque his que post m o rtem boni (1955), pp. 351-352; et 3 R ev. adm . dns. A ngelus P A R E D I, q. u ., pp.
ac m ali p a tiu n tu r n a rra tio n e Eri P am p h ilii d em o n strat. 225-228, ex codice A m brosiano P etri C an d id i; et 4 S A M M U T , q. u.,
pp. 176-179, no. 16.

1 -4 deest arg. pnmum in autographo, quo in loco reposuimus alios testes sub nr. 33 laudatos 3
Glaucone et Adimanto post Trasimacho A 4 disputantemj disponentem O
38. Ex epistolario P etri C an d id i q u asdam ad H u m fred u m ducem
G loucestrensem datas atque ab eodem acceptas, itidem ut epistulam
su p ra laudatam codicibus De republica lib ro ru m plerum que insertas
36, M arg in alia G u arin i V eronensis in cod. R eg. lat. 1131 exarata, cu rau eru n t 'M a riu s B O R S A (1904), pp. 512-524; et 2 S A M M U T , q.
libros De re publica illu stran tia edidit Ja c o b u s H A N K IN S in Supplemen- u ., pp. 180-185, nos. 18-21, pp. 186-187, no. 23, et pp. 194, no. 30.
tuni Feslivum, ad pagg. 181-188.

39. P etri C andidi praefationem in om nes libros De republica Platonis

recognouerunt 'R eg in ald u s P O O L E ex cod. H arleiano 1705 quasi ad-
d itam en tu m epistolarum a B orsa ed itaru m op. c it., pp. 525-526; et 2ex
parte G A R IN (1955), p. 342 ex cod. T au rin en si; et 3 S A M M U T , q. u .,
pp. 203-205, no. 37.

40. P etri C andidi prologum in librum secundum De republica curauit

S A M M U T , q. u ., pp. 205-206, no. 38.

41. P etri C an d id i prologum in lib ru m tertiu m De republica curauit SA M ­

M U T , q. u ., pp. 206-208, no. 39.

42. P etri C an d id i prologum in librum q u artu m De republica curauit

S A M M U T , q. u ., pp. 208-209, no. 40.
532 P A R T II
T E X TS 533

43. Petri C an d id i prologum in librum q u in tu m De repubhca curauit G ann 9 iis A ex corr. auct. ] his H S T V . hbr. in A 16 iis A ex corr. auct.\ his H S T V , libr.
G A R IN (1955), pp. 348-349, ex codice T a u rin e n si. Q u em denuo suscepi in A 17 eae A ex corr. auct.} hae H S T V , libr. in A 21 disciplinis A H S T \ litteris V, fort,
edendum ad fidem archetypi A m brosiani, codices au tem dedicatorios hie ex corr. auct. 22 potius H S T V , ex corr. auct. s.s. A 24 Sed om. G ann loco H S T V '] ex lo-
quo corr. auct. in A 25 nunc ... disserentem om. G a n n
illic testes adducens, H a rleian u m scilicet et V atican u m , nec non
T au rin en sem ac S alam an tin u m , q uippe cum hos om nes correxit em en- lin marg. A scr. Petrus C andidus : Nota. Hie est fundamentum erroris Lactantii ac aliorum
d au itq u e P etrus C an d id u s m an u pro p ria. qui non aduertunt similitudinem ciuitatis a Socrate descriptam per comparationem
suorum custodum, sed putant eum de uniuersa sua ciuitate loqui.

A — A m bros. I 104 su p ., codex archetvpus

H — H arl. 1705, exem plar d ed icato riu m p rim u m
S — S alam an tin . U niu. M - 6 6 , ad A lphonsum B urgensem missus 44. P etri C an d id i breuis an notatio librorum o m nium De republica quam
T — T a u rin e n . Bibl. N at. et U niu. E III 30 codices p lerum que exhibent inter libros q u in tu m et sextum eiusdem
V — V at. lat. 10669, exem plar alteru m d edicatorium operis; hactenus inedita. Q u am curaui adhibitis testibus eisdem qui sub
nr. superiori laudati sunt.
Petri C an d id i D ecem bris oratoris in libro Politiae Platonis quinto, in
laudem illustrissim i et litteratissim i principis dom ini ducis G loucestrensis Ad illustrissim um et litteratissim um principem d o m in u m H um fredum
prologus incipit feliciter, ad eru d itissim u m iurisconsultum Ioannem ducem G loucestrensem de om nibus platonicae Politiae libris breuis a n ­
A m adeum ciuem M ediolanensem . T ra d u c tio prim a. notatio P etri C an d id i incipit feliciter.
C u m A ristotelis Politicae secundum lib ru m n u p er euoluerem , curiosus S aepenum ero ad m irari soleo, princeps illustrissim e, cum ceteras huius
alioquin intelligendi q u em ad m o d u m P latoni et Socrati in iis quae ad 5 p raestan tis ac diuini philosophi uirtutes turn uel m axim e quod ea quae
reru m publicarum beatitu d in em p ertin en t sese accom m odaret, offendi ingenio perficere conatus est adeo luculenter o rn ate g rau iter exponit, ut
ren t iudicio m eo p erin d ig n am , non m in im u m a praeceptore suo dissidere nihil illius scriptis, nedum uberius et gratius, sed ne subtilius quidem
AriStotelem in iis quae a P latone aliter et dicta et explicata sunt quam ab possit cogitari. N am ut om ittam q u a eloquentia q u ib usque sententiis
ipso referan tu r. Ingem ui itaque non erroris alicuiusa— neque enim id philosophiae om nis disciplinam ac u irtu tis ab incunabulis, ut ita dicam ,
tem ere de tanto uiro suspicandum re o r— sed liuoris potius occulti m orsus 10 repetat, quis non m iretu r uel in m inim is ab eo nullum diligentiae m unus
citra sanguinem pio corpori infixos, q u ib u s nulla au t certe m inim a esse p raeterm issum , sed om nia praecipuo q u odam ordine et quasi lineis
superesset cicatrix. Itaq u e cum nihil u eritate praestabilius queat reperiri, q u ib u sd am distincta esse et explicata? N em pe, ut ab his incipiam quae
nihilque u irtu tis laude sit dignius, u tru m q u e existim aui breui opere com- m inus anim i nostri m ag n aru m reru m ad m iratio n e solent speculari, num
preh en d ere, ut et om nibus nota foret Socratis Platonisque sententia de clare intelligim us praesentis operis contextum atque corpus decern serio
iis potissim um quae in eos A ristoteles de m ulierum com m unione puero- 15 distinctum esse libris ad q u an d am im itationem ac sim ilitudinem aeui
ru m q u e disseruit, deinde ut philosophorum p rincipi P latoni eae praeci- nostri? U t qu em ad m o d u m in fine decim i libri ab eo m em o ratu m est,
pue h a b e re n tu r laudes quas m eretu r. uitam h u m an am centum annis solere te rm in a ri , 3 sic decern libri per se
H u n c ig itur Politiae suae librum q u in tu m fidelissim e e G raecis litteris quisque decennium tem pus an n o tantes plenam et consum m atam cum
in L atinas u erti, nullam si q u a e nostris em anasse u id e re tu r interpreta- operis turn aeui red d an t rationem , quam decies decern m ultiplicata com-
tionem im itatus. N am cum G raecis disciplinis ab u n d e profecerim , quem 20 p o n u n t. Q u a m q u a m , si Senecae ac M acrobio c red im u s,b nouem nouies
potius sequerer ducem qu am P latonem ipsum ? C u iu s eloquentia adeo il- perfectum ac diffinitum hum an ae uitae m odum co n tin eb u n t, q ua aetate
lusttis est, ut non m inus dicendi su au itate quam sen ten tiaru m pondere cum Plato e u ita decessisset, M a g i,c qui turn forte A thenis eran t, im-
apud G raecos h a b e a tu r prim us. Sed haec alio in loco d icen tu r uberius; m olauere defuncto m aioris conditionis qu am h u m an ae ilium arbitrati,
nunc uero Socratem aud iam u s disserentem . 2 quod consum m atissim um aeui sui term in u m prim o et octogesim o extinc-
25 tus anno perfecisset.
V eru m ut ad prim a redeam us, uidem us enim q u a n ta ratione ac soller-
2 H u m tred i post d o m in i .SK !5 ltd ic ito r in cip it SV e ru d itissim u m A/.V.V] illu strissi- tia praeclarissim us philosophus operis praesentis ordinem annectens,
in u in G ann 6 iis A ex corr. manu auctoris\ h is H S l 'V . hbrarius in .1 8 m eo iu d ic io
ueluti gradibus quibusdam ad sum m um im um que deducat ac singulos
 53^ P A R T II TEXTS 535

per libros form am non absim ilem n a tu ra e n ostrae co n etu r aem ulari. Prin- AST 23 maioris S T V , ex c o n . A 24 octo- S T V , ex c o n . A \ octua- m an. p n m a A 34 fir­
30 cipio quidem uiru m quem perfecte b o n u m d escripturus est a prim is miorem S T V , ex c o n . a u c t. A ] furorum m a n . p r i m a A 38 ipsa o m . S 40 disciplina om .
S 44 iis A ex c o n . a u c t. ] his S T V , m a n . p r i m a A disserit] dixerit V
stu d io ru m incunabulis in lucem , hoc est, ad u eritatis cognitionem ,
elaturus uariis m ultiplicibusque a rg u m en tis nec satis ad rationem rectam 16-17 u id . R e p . X , 615E 20-25 Seneca E p. L V III, cap. 31
aspiran tib u s teneram et rudem p u e ritia m prim o libro n ititu r effingere.
l'in m a r g . scr. P e tr . C a n d id u s : Vita humana centum annis terminatur hin m a r g . scr. ide m :
D ein ueluti firm iorem im m o biliorem que adolescentiam m oribus insti- Seneca, Macrobius Magi: attende.
Lin m a r g . scr. id e m :
35 tuens qu am uigesim us annus explere solet, de urbis origine iustitiaeque
indagatione secundo libro sum it ex o rd iu m . Q u em trigesim us succedens
annus ex tertio uicissim an n o tatu s libro ad m orum n orm am rectiorem
m usicaeque ac gym nasticae d o ctrin am , d enique ad arm a ipsa custodem 45. P etri C an d id i prologus in librum sextum De republica, hactenus in-
urbis form at ac instruit. H u n c im ita tu r q u a rti ordo atq u e nu m eru s de editus. Q u em curaui eadem ratione quam supra.
40 u irtu tu m disciplina et origine iustitiae, cum ea q u ad rag en arii uiri m eta
sit, ut aetate ilia au t sero tan d em sapientiae- uirtu tisq u e principia P etri C an d id i D ecem bris oratoris in libro Politiae Platonis sexto ad
cred atu r adipisci. Q u id sequentem lib ru m m em orem ? In quo de filiorum praeclarissim um et eruditissim um praesulem A lphonsum H ispanum
eruditio n e m ilitarique doctrin a, d en iq u e de regno et p rincipatu ac om ­ B urgensem episcopum praefatio incipit feliciter.
nibus iis quae m atu rio ri co n g ru u n t aetati adeo copiose et ornate disserit, M a g n u m beniuolentiae et caritatis exem plar m ihi praestitit illustre
45 ut an im ad u ertere possim us eum qui philosophus fu tu ru s sit anno dem um 5 m u n u s tu u m , A lphonse pater et decus no stru m , u t nisi te sum m opere
q uinquagesim o solere form ari. Sextus au tem qui huic ipsi coniunctus est diligam et colam , om ni profecto gratia et pietate u id ear indignus. Nam
u eram certam que philosophi explicat n a tu ra m , quem sexagesim us aeta- q u a m q u a m tua hu m an itas iam pridem m ihi ab u n d e perspecta sit et cog-
tis an n u s ad sum m um bonum eueh it et ab om ni labe ac tu rp itu d in e n ita, turn uel m axim e notior facta est, ex quo non m eam solum sed mul-
p u ru m esse docet. Septim us subinde liber, hoc est, septuagesim us ex- to ru m ig n o ran tiam tarn benigne tibi succensere passus es nosque potius
50 pletus an n u s, ad Dei ueri notionem et am orem b o n u m et rectum uirum 10 ab erro re nostro resipiscere q uam correctionis tuae ferula concidi
instru it, cum m a tu ra iam et c o n su m m ata aetas n o stra u id eatu r. Q uippe m aluisti. H abes igitur m e, p ater optim e, perp etu o deu in ctu m habebis-
cum nil ulterius sit quod uotis exp etam u s, in solo D eo requiescere et que, u t po eta in q u it, “ d um spiritus hos reget a rtu s ” .
laetari debet nostra cogitatio. Et q u e m a d m o d u m octogesim us uitae an ­ Sed q u a m q u a m m u lta ac p raecipua in me beneficia tu a non modo
nus non corporis nostri solum uires d ep rim it, sed sensus hebetat et anim i m en tem m eam obligarint, sed obnoxiam in su p er effecerint dignitati
55 d im in u tio n em p u ta tu r afferre, sic o ctauus liber huius operis uitiosarum 15 tuae, nihil est tam en quod m agis ad m irer et ho no re prosequendum esse
refu m publicarum ortus progressus finem que d em o n strat. Post quem putem q u am quod tantopere praestantissim is et optim is uiris afficeris ut
nonus in tyrannidem conuersus uilissim am q u a n d a m decrepitae putres- nihil eo ru m operibus tibi gratius aut iucundius posset afferri. C um
ceqtisque n atu rae signat d iritatem . H u ic postrem o decim us et ultim us Caelestem itaque Platonis Politiam caelesti et uere gloria digno principi duci
aqnexus est q ui, ut operis finem nobis an tep o n it, b ona quoque et m ala post G loucestrensi n u p er transtulissem , m em or u irtu tis tuae ac dignitatis
60 obitum edisserit, ita centesim um a n n u m attin g en ti nil nisi ex bene acta 20 q u id q u e am icitia no stra m ereretu r anim o contem plans, partem diuini
u ita requiem , ex male condignam p o en am pollicetur. Q uae om nia cum praeclariq u e laboris tibi inscribere decreui, u t non m odo m eritas tuae in
a P latone sum m a cum diligentia ac ratio n e, u t praem isim us, scripta nos beniuolentiae laudes restituerem , sed te illi litteris im m ortalitateque
an im ad u erterem , uisum est tuae d ig n itati im prim is recensere, non quod coniu n g erem quo nullus aeuo nostro sapientior, nullus gestarum rerum
ea tibi ignota fore existim em , sed u t q u am ego uoluptatem scribendo gloria illustrior au t litteraru m m onum entis celebrari dignior uisus est.
65 cepissem , tu a p ariter legendo su blim itas acciperet. 25 E rit ig itu r hie sextus in ordine nom ini tuo consecratus liber, tuasque
ut au g u ro r exim ias posteritati relatu ru s laudes, u t quem ad m o d u m reli-
gionem sanctim oniam ac pietatem continue in u ita obseruare studuisti,
4-5 praestantis huius V 5 praestantis ac o m . S 6 et gratius p o s t grauiter d el. a u c t. i n S 7 ita te om nis u e n tu ra aetas subinde m em oret, et praeclarissim i ducis in-
ne .4 7] neque S : nec V 8 -que o m . S 14 contextum) contestem ATSIS] serio A/S.S] m a lim
sertum pen etralib u s m iretu r, nec m inus co n g ru u m h u m an itatis ac con-
serie 18 annotantes S T V \ annotantem .4 22 e uita a d d . s .s . a u c t. in V \ om .
30 tin en tiae referas praeconium . Est enim egregie a m aioribus nostris in-
 536 P A R T II TEXTS 537

stitutu m et potissim um a P latone ipso litteris testatum et operibus, ut il- P etri C an d id i D ecem bris oratoris in libro Politiae Platonis decimo et
lustribus et honestis uiris cond ig n a bene actae uitae p raem ia red d an tu r. ultim o ad praestantissim um praesulem d o m in u m Franciscum Pizolpas-
Q u ar^q u am quis ego sum au t q u id ingenii m ei uires q u eu n t efficere aut sum M ediolanensem archiepiscopum praefatio incipit feliciter.
quis tuam u irtu tem h u m a n ita te m co n stan tiam fidem ab u n d e calam o U ltim us huiusce traductionis nostrae labor tibi d irig etu r, Francisce
35 possit explicare? C eteru m uices nostras et am oris in nos m u tu i facile, ut 5 Pizolpasse, praesul hum anissim e, non quo te p atrem et praeceptorem
existipno, supplebit uel philosophi ipsius d ignitas ac praestan tia, cui un icu m aetatis nostrae ceteris am icis meis p o sthabuerim , sed ut earn
nullus ex om nibus est an tep o n en d u s cuiusque operibus insertum est potissim um uigiliarum m earum p artem tibi ascriberem , quae tua auc-
tuum nom en ac m em oria, uel p raestan tissim i et litteratissim i ducis toritate p ru d en tia religione esset dignissim a. N am cum m ulta a Platone
Glouctestrensis im m ortali operi a d iu n c ta claritas quae tu u m non m odo p rioribus in libris sancte pieque dictata et an im ad u ersa sint, hoc tam en
40 nom en ac decus, sed n o stram uicissim fam am et honorem ab om ni 10 in libro, ut arb itro r, ita em inet illius sapientia, ut non ceteros modo phi-
uetustatis labe atque in iu ria perfacile tueri et posteritati potest com- losophos, sed se ipsum uisus sit superasse. Q u ip p e qui anim orum im-
m endare. m o rtalitatem non solum probat ratione atque arg u m en tis, sed paradisi
delicias et inferni supplicia, denique resurrectionem nostram religiosissi-
me ac fidelissime describit. Q u id de u erb o ru m santim onia et grauitate
2 praeqlarum V dominum post praesulem SF 8 notior] nota V 10 rescipiscere sic V 20 15 referam ? in quibus euangelica d ogm ata nonnullis in locis adeo expressa
in post quidque del. aucl. in A 22 nos] me 5 V 26 relaturus] redacturus 5 27 continue
sunt, ut nihil diuinius au t sanctius ab ullo p o tu erit afferri. M inim e itaque
5, ex con. auct. d] continuo T V 31 potissime T V 34 fidem constantiam V 38 et STV ,
s.s. A principis post litteratiss. V, in ras. A: Humfredi post litteratiss. T: ducis lit­ a d m iro r C iceronem nostrum cum huiusm odi Caelestem Politiam sex libris
teratissimi 5 esset aem ulatus, hanc potissim um diuinitatis p artem in Scipioms sui Som-
12 Vergilius, Aen. IV .336
nmm transtulisse, non quod p ar dignitas rei fictae ac uerae perhibenda
20 sit, sed quod nullam sine spe im m ortalitatis iustitiae religionisque
tutelam fore arb itra b a tu r. G ratias itaque am plissim as ago G loucestrensi
nostro principi, om nium optim o et dignissim o, qui nos potissim um sua
46. Petri C an d id i prologum in lib ru m septim um De republica curauit cu ra ad hanc operam exciuit, dein tuae separatim hum an itati ac uirtuti
S A M M U T , q. u ., pp. 209-211, no. 41. cuius cum ulatissim is laudibus etsi indigni p u ta re m u r, om nia tam en post-
25 h ab en d a censuim us, quoad opere ac testim onio u id erem u r esse dignissimi.

1 Decembrii A ex con. 5 quo AfSlS] quod Gann 12 atque post ratione dSF ex con. auct.
47. Petri C an d id i prologum in lib ru m o ctau u m De republica cu rau eru n t T: om. Gann
'G A R IN (1955), pp. 354-355 ex cod. T a u rin e n si; et 2 S A M M U T , q. u .,
pp. 211-213, no. 42.

50. A rgum entula et capitula lib ro ru m decern De republica a Petro C an-

dido com posita, hactenus inedita. Q uae recognoui iuxta fidem archetypi
48. P etri C an d id i prologum in lib ru m n o n u m De republica curau it S A M ­ A m brosiani, aliis uero hie illic usus sum codicibus qui supra sub nr. 43
M U T , q. u ., pp. 213-215, no. 43. sunt laudati. Q uibus accedunt post singula capitula Platonici textus loci
iuxta paginas S tephanianas citati.
A a — T ab u la quam praebet cod. A m bros. I 104 sup. praefa-
tionem prim am inter ac initium libri prim i
49. Petri C an d id i prologum in lib ru m decim um De republica curauit Ab — C ap itu la librorum ut in eodem libro passim sunt disposita
G A R IN (1955), p. 356, ex cod. T a u rin e n si. Q u am cu rau i denuo eisdem a — C onsensus lectionum in Aa Sa T a V a
testibus adhibitis qu am antea. [3 — C onsensus lectionum in Ab Sb T b V b
 538 P A R T II TEXTS 539

Platonis A theniensis philosophi illustrissim i celestis Politie liber prim us 40 IV (362D). D isputatio A dim anti de laude iusticie p rim u m
an n o ta tu r in quo introducit S ocratem p receptorem suum in P irea in cum Socrate.
dom o C ephali Lisanie cum Polem archo T rasim ach o et aliis de iustitia V (364A). D efensio iniusticie secundo p er exem pla
disserentem . po etaru m .
V I (365A). E adem iniusticie defensio p er exem pla
5 C ap itu lu m I (327A). Q u e Socrati de politiis disserendi causa fuerit. 45 u iro ru m illustrium et u rb iu m .
II (328C). E xcusatio senectutis per C ephalum . V II (366B). Iusticiam ob im becilitatem hu m an am solere
III (329E). Ad quid d iu itia ru m possessio conferat laudari.
potissim e. V III (367A). E x h o rtatu r Socratem A dim antus ad iusticie
IV (331C). Q u id iusticia sit in q u iritu r et u t nem ini quis defensionem .
10 noceat etiam lacessitus iniuria. 50 IX (368A). Excusatio Socratis, deinde exem pli propositio
V (336B). D isputatio T ra sim a c h i co n tra Socratem . de iusticie indagatione.
V I (338B). D iffinitio T rasim ach i: iustum esse potentioris X (369B). P rincipium ciuitatis a Socrate institute.
com m odum . X I (370E). De his que ad urbis institutionem uid en tu r
V II (341 A). R esponsio Socratis: om nem artem subiecti sui necessaria.
15 com m odum inspicere. 55 X II (371E). De n u trim en to incolarum et differentia inter
V III (343A). C o n trad ictio T rasim ach i: perfectam nequitiam sobriam et lasciuam ciuitatem , et de origine
potiorem esse iusticia. belli.
IX (344D). A rtis cuiuslibet o perationem a m ercenaria X III (374E). De exercitatione arm o ru m et m ilitie disciplina.
separari utilitate. X IV (374E). C o m p aratio custodis urbis ad canis generosi
20 X (346E). De prem iis et m ercede rem publicam regentium 60 n atu ram .
X I (348B). De peruersis ap pellationibus m alitie et iusticie. X V (376C). De eruditione custodum urbis in m usica prius
X II (349B). G um iustus iusto plus nolit au t cupiat, q uam gim nastica per fabularum narrationem .
m eliorem iniusto uiro diffiniri. X V I (377C). Q ue fabule pueris referende sint et econtra.
X III (350D). Q u e n a tu ra sit iniusticie et iniquitatis. X V II (379A). De form is theologie, et quod a Deo solo bona
25 X IV (352B). C uiuslibet rei p ro p riu m opus et u irtu tem esse 65 procedant.
propriam . X V III (380D). Q u o d D eus a pro p ria form a n u m q u am im-
X V (353D). Socratis conclusio solos iustos felices esse, in- m u tetu r.
iustos m iseros, co n tra T rasim ach u m . X IX (382A). Q u o d in Deo nullum sit m endatium .

Platonis A theniensis philosophi illustrissim i Celestis Politie liber secun-

30 dus a n n o ta tu r in quo A d im an tu s et G lauco A ristonis filii contra iusticiam Platonis A theniensis philosophi illustrissim i Celestis Politie liber tertius
Socrati acerrim e co n trad icu n t, q u ib u s ille respondendo statum optim e 70 a n n o ta tu r in quo Socrates circa m usicam et gim nasticam ciuitatis sue
ciuitatis disponit pro indag atio n e iusticie aliaru m q u e u irtu tu m . custodes instruendos p u ta t, co n tra poetas disserendo qui figm enta ac
m endacia p lu ra trad id eru n t.
C ap itu lu m I (357A). D e triplici genere b o n o ru m et in quo
potissim um iusticia consistit.
35 II (358E). De origine iusticie, et quod quisque ab iniuriis C ap itu lu m I (386A). O m nes po etaru m fictiones de inferorum
abstineat necessitate coactus, non uoluntate: cruciatibus abolendas esse.
opinio G lauconis. 75 II (388A). Q u o d p oetarum carm in a neq u aq u am audienda
I ll (360E). De differentia uite iusti et iniusti exem plum sint in quibus deorum et heroum fletus
per simile. referu n tu r.
 540 P A R T II TE X TS 541

III (389B). V eritatis co m m en d atio per Socratem et II (421C). D iuitias ac p au p ertatem ab urbe subm ouendas
lasciuorum c a rm in u m u erb o ru m q u e repre- docet, et qualiter u n a ciuitas aduersus plures
hensio. ualeat.
80 IV (390E). C o n tra poetas et o ratores inuehit a quibus 120 III (423B). Q u o d quisque ad quod aptus est institu atu r, et
p lu rim a in u e rita te m conscripta sunt, q u an tu m m usice obsit innouatio.
a u aritiam im p rim is arguens. IV (424E). D e legali eruditione ex q ua statu ta noscuntur
V (392C ). De vario lo q u en d i m odo et quae potissim um necessaria, et rerum p u blicarum institutione
locutio p ro b e tu r, item de n arra tio n e et im ita- uitiosa per exem plum .
85 tione et que la u d e tu r au t u itu p e re tu r im itatio. 125 V (427C). De u irtu tib u s politicis ex quibus ciuitas
V I (394D ). O m nes im itationes scenicas indecoras esse huiusm odi dicenda sit, et prim o de prudentia.
custodi ciuitatis. V I (429A). Q u id proprie d icatur fortitudo per exem pla
V II (396B). De duplici locutionis et im itationis form a et elegantissim e describitur.
que sit laud ab ilio r. V II (430D ). De n a tu ra tem perantie, et com paratione
90 V III (397D ). Q u e im itatio in urbe ad m itten d a, et que eii- 130 hu m an i corporis ad urbem .
cienda co n tra m ultiscios. V III (432B). De iusticie indagatione et quid ipsa sit.
IX (398D ). De m odo canen d i et m elodiarum . IX (433C). V irtu tu m concertatio ad rei publice institu-
X (399E). De rithm is et his que s e q u u n tu r et q u an tu m tionem ex qua iusticia resultat.
n u tritio im prim is conferat. X (434B). Q u id m aleficentia sit, et iusticie com probatio.
95 X I (40 ID ). Q u am utilis m usica sit ad anim i concinnitatem 135 X I (435A). Sim ilitudo ciuitatis iuste ad hom inem .
et m odestiam . X II (436B). Elegans disputatio quod iddem secundum id-
X II (403C ). De gim nastice eru d itio n e et uite continentia. dem et ad iddem diuersa pati et agere non
X III (405A). De m edicinali n ecessaria et non necessaria ac possit.
de laude E sculapii. X III (437D). De diuersis affectibus anim e.
100 X IV (408C ). Q ualis bonus m edicus et iudex sit habendus. 140 X IV (438D). Iterata probatio ex q u a anim e diuisio con-
X V (410B). De tem p eram en to m usice ac gim nastice et cernitur.
q uid u tra q u e prosit et obsit. X V (439D ). D uas p rim u m anim e partes esse rationalem et
X V I (412B). Q u a lite r qui bo n u s princeps sit fu tu ru s ex- appetibilem concludit, dem um irascibilem per
perim en to co m p ro b etu r. exem pla confirm at.
105 X V II (414B). De p rin cip u m et ciuium nobilitate et ignobili- 145 X V I (441C). V niuersalis u irtu tu m sim ilitudo ciuitatis ad
tate d iscern en d a notabile figm entum . hom inem .
X V III (415D ). De h ab itatio n e et com m unione custodum X V II (443C). C onclusio iusticie et iniquitatis, et quid u tra ­
ciuitatis eru d itio sanctissim a. que per se ualeat.
X V III (445A). P rincipium tractatus de spetiebus om nium
Platonis A theniensis philosophi illustrissim i Celestis Politie liber qu artu s 150 politiarum .
110 an n o ta tu r, in quo Socrates, d ata responsione A dim anto de felicitate
publicq ciuitatis, de unione suam p otissim um lau d at ciuitatem , diui-
sionem aliaru m im p ro b an d o , deque custodum diligentia et b ona erudi- Platonis A theniensis philosophi illustrissim i Celestis Politie liber quintus
tione, q u id q u e piftet esse iusticiam , ac de tribus pro g u bernatione a n n o ta tu r in quo Socrates post ciuitatem ad bene beateque uiuendum ab
ciuitatis et h o m in u m im prim is necessariis. ipso conditam a serm one incepto ab A dim anto distractus com pellitur de
u iro ru m et m ulierum connubiis et puero ru m n u tritio n e disserere, pos-
115 C ap itu lu m I (419A). U rb em felicem fieri non ad u n u m d u m tax at in 155 sibile ostendens ciuitatem qu am condidit esse ac fieri si m odo philosophi
ea genus sed u n iu ersam respectando. p rin cip en tu r, et quos intelligit philosophos esse dicit.

_.L
 542 P A R T II TEXTS 543

C ap itu lu m I (449A). Q u o m o d o ab A d im an to in te r p e lla te Socrates X IX (473B). Q uod solis philosophis reg n are, uel regibus
a prem isso p o litiaru m ordine desciuerit. 200 philosophari necesse sit.
II (450C ). E xcusatio Socratis de com m unione custodum X X (474C). Q u ed am non illepida de p u e ro ru m am oribus
160 referenda, deinde eiusdem explicatio eadem et quis uerus sit philosophus.
uiris atq u e fem inis offitia esse im partienda. X X I (475D). De differentia inter intelligentem et
III (452B). N ihil irrid e n d u m nisi stultum et obscenum , et opinantem .
disp u tatio Socratis ad se ipsum . 205 X X II (476D). Irrisio Socratis in falsos philosophos et de opi-
IV (453E). Explicatio eiusdem inquisitionis et n atu ram nione et cognitione.
165 m uliebrem a n a tu ra uiri nihil differre contra X X III (477D). Elegans disputatio in ter scibile et opinabile, et
sophistas d isp u tat. quod opinio nec scientia sit nec inscitia.
V (455A). De differentiis n a tu ra ru m uel ingeniorum , et X X IV (479D). C onclusio Socratis in eos qui p lura bona et
ad idem uirilem et m uliebrem ap tam esse 210 non u n u m bo n u m q u eu n t noscere, et quid in ­
n a tu ra m . ter philosophum sit et philodoxum .
170 V I (456B). M ulieres in m usica et gim nastica erudiendas.
V II (457C ). Q u o d m ulieres custodum ciuitatis com m unes Platonis A theniensis philosophi illustrissim i Celestis Politic liber sextus
esse debent. a n n o ta tu r in quo Socrates predicta de uero ostendit philosopho, n aturam
V III (458B). De h ab itatio n e custodum p rom iscua cum mulie- docens philosopham causasque dicens p ro p ter quas philosophi plerum -
ribus, de ord in e generandi, et filiorum alim onia. 215 que ad regim en censeantur inutiles, et ex quibus philosophic calum nia
175 IX (460D ). De tem pore generationis m asculi et femelle, et o ria tu r, sed quod ueri philosophi sunt ad regendum aptissim i et in
licentia o rd in a ria . quibus sunt etatibus sum endi, et dem um de bono p er sim ilitudinem solis
X (461E). Q u o d m ax im u m ciuitatis b o n u m sit custodum ad uisum quem boni natu m n o m inat ac de uisibili et intelligibili per
m ulieres et filios com m unes esse exem plo im aginem .
docet.
180 X I (462E). De differentia p rin cip u m custodum et ciuium 220 C ap itu lu m i (484A). Q uod soli philosophi regno et principatu digni
ciuitatis hu iu sm o d i ad alias, et filiorum iu d icen tu r et cuiusm odi n a tu ra philosopha
p a tru m q u e noticia. censenda sit.
X II (464B). Q u a n tu m utilitatis afferat huiusm odi com- II (487B). De calum niis philosophorum elegans excusatio
m unio, et de co n tin en tia in ter illos. Socratis per im aginem .
185 X III (465B). D e b eatitu d in e custodum urbis ad alios, et de 225 I l l (489D). Q u o d uerus philosophus in D ei cognitione
custode non uero. sem per inhereat et de causis im pedientibus
X IV (466E). Q u e m a d m o d u m pu eri a p aren tib u s in re n atu ram philosopham perfectam fieri.
m ilitari sint eru d ien d i. IV (492A). Q u a n tu m obsit publica im itatio ad uirtutem
X V (467C ). De cu ra p a re n tu m circa filios in bello et q u em ­ per exem plum docet.
190 ad m o d u m colendi sint qui strenue se gesserint. 230 V (493E). Q u o d inanis fau o r ac felicitas bonorum m un-
X V I (469B). De cap tiu itate et q uom odo in uictoria se d an o ru m philosophi n a tu ra m solent per-
g eran t m ilites. uertere.
X V II (470A). De differentia in te r bellum et seditionem , et V I (495C). Q uom odo indocti q u id am et plebei philosophic
195 m ilitum d e m e n tia in bello. nom en assum entes falsam illi calum niam in-
X V III (471B). G lauconis in te rp e lla te si talis res publica, et 235 d iderint et de diuino signo Socratis uitaque
quom odo, fu tu ra sit possibilis, et Socratis tranquilla.
responsio p er exem plum facetissim a. V II (497A). Q ue philosopho d igna sit res publica, et
quibus exercitiis im b u en d u s quau e etate et
 544 P A R T II TEXTS 545

q u aliter in finem usque deducendus qui felix IV (521C). Q ue discipline ad sum m i boni cognitionem
240 sit futurus. 280 necessarie d ic a n tu r esse, et prim o de
V III (498C). Q u o d possibile sit huiusm odi rem publicam et arith m etrica.
regem rep eriri, et quod nullus ad huius V (523B). Q u e res intellectu au t sensu solo deprehendan-
regim en philosopho sit dignior. tur, ex quo uisibilis intelligibilisque cognitio
IX (500E). Q u o d philosophus rem publicam ad Dei cogni- est in u en ta, et quod arith m etrica ad entis
245 tionem dispo situ ru s sit, per exem plum picture 285 cognitionem potissim um an im am inducat.
elegantissim e d em o n strat, et quod difficile sit, V I (526C). Q uod geom etria ex his disciplinis sit que ad
non tam en im possibile, talem reperiri posse entis cognitionem im prim is hab eatu r
rem publicam . necessaria, post q u am profunditatis augum enti
X (502C ). Q u ib u s ex m orib u s et q u aliter p ro bandus sit seq u atu r disciplina.
250 qui rex esse m e re a tu r, et de eruditione 290 V II (528E). Q u o d astronom ie disciplina in ordine qu arta
disciplinarum m ax im aru m . p o n a tu r et ad entis cognitionem m axim e con-
X I (504D). Q u o d boni idea m ax im a sit disciplina, et de ducat, si per earn om nibus preterm issis sen-
ign o ran tia eo ru m qui u oluptatem uel scientiam sibus intelligibilia solum n ita m u r speculari.
su m m u m b o n u m p u ta u e ru n t. V III (531D ). D e laude dialectice que super ceteras
255 X II (506D). P rincipium tractatu s sum m i boni per sim ilitu- 295 disciplinas apposita an im am m irabiliter euehit
dinem solis ad uisum quern boni natu m ad sum m i boni et entis notionem , et quis
nom inat. uerus dialecticus hab eatu r.
X III (508D). Q u o d Dei intelligentia soli et sum m i boni idea IX (535A). Q u ib u s exercitia huiusm odi disciplinarum sint
sit, q ua m ed ian te p er intelligibilem anim e trib u en d a, et qui p rin cip atu im prim is censean-
260 nostre p artem que percipi q u ean t intelligim us. 300 tu r digni.
X IV (509C). D istinctio uisibilis et intelligibilis partis et X (536D ). Q u o d pueri sponte, non ui aut necessitate, ad
q u em ad m o d u m ad corpus et an im u m sese disciplinas sint inducendi, et de dialectici ueri
hab ean t. probatione per im aginem .
X V (51 IB). De residua intelligibilis parte per quam X I (539D). Q u a etate et q u aliter instituendi sint et usque
265 h u m an u s intellectus ad Dei ascendit notionem . 305 ad finem deducendi qui custodes urbis esse
m erean tu r.
Platonis A theniensis philosophi illustrissim i Celestis Politie liber Sep­
tim us a n n o ta tu r in quo Socrates de eru d itio n e et ineruditione ac de uisu Platonis A theniensis philosophi illustrissim i Celestis Politie liber octauus
et intelligibili per im aginem o stendit et quod bone n atu re uiri cogendi a n n o ta tu r in quo Socrates agit de q u a ttu o r ciuilitatibus prim o propositis,
sunt lum en inspicere ueritatis, postea reliquos g u b ern are, quodque scilicet tim ocratica oligarchica dim ocratica atque tiran n ica, et de uiris ip-
270 ueritatis cognitio m axim e per a rith m etricam g eom etriam profunditatis 310 saru m ciuilitatum singulis com paratis atque conform ibus.
augu m en tu m astro n o m iam et d em u m p er dialecticam percipitur.
C ap itu lu m I (543A). Q u em ad m o d u m Socrates post felicem
C ap itu lu m I (514A). De n atu re nostre eru d itione et ineruditione per ciuitatem ab ipso conditam uiru m q u e con-
im aginem elegantissim e describit. sim ilem , ad preposita d enuo reuersus de reli-
II (517B). A daptatio superioris im aginis de uisibili et in­ quis q u a ttu o r ciuilitatibus ex o ritu r narrare.
275 telligibili in quo sum m i boni dignoscitur idea. 315 II (545D ). Q u a de causa om nis politia quam uis salubriter
I ll (519B). Q u o d soli philosophi cogendi sint lum en in ­ co n stitu ta p erp etu a esse neq u eat, et de
spicere ueritatis, postea ad ciuitatis regim en geom etrici num eri p o tentia explicatio perdif-
accedere, et quis status rei publicae sit potior. ficilis.
 54$ P A R T II TEXTS 547

III (547D ). De dem o cratica ciuilitate et quom odo o riatu r, V III (585B). Q u o d uoluptates que circa corporis cultum
320 et que sim iliter ipsius n a tu ra et m ores sint, et 360 sunt m inus substancie et entis uere participent
de uiro illi m axim e consim ili. q u am que circa anim um , et quod tiran n u s
IV (550C ). De ciuilitate oligarchica et q uom odo o ria tu r, et p lu rim u m a uera distat uoluptate.
que sim iliter sit ipsius n atu ra. IX (587B). Q u a n tu m uite iocunditate tiran n u s a regali
V (553A). De uiro oligarchico et quom odo ex su p eretu r p er arithm etricas quasdam
325 dem ocratico n ascatu r, et de illius p ariter 365 sim ilitudines ostendit.
n a tu ra . X (588B). Epilogus prem issorum per tricipitem im aginem
V I (555B). De d em o cratica ciuilitate et quom odo o riatu r, anim e nostre de iusticia et iniusticia com-
q u am ex o m n ib u s m ultiplicem et u ariam esse p aratam .
ostendit.
330 V II (558C ). De o rtu uiri dem ocratici, et prim o de necessa­ Platonis A theniensis philosophi illustrissim i Celestis Politie liber
riis et non necessariis u oluptatibus. 370 decim us et ultim us a n n o ta tu r in quo Socrates disputat co n tra poetas pic-
V III (562A). De tira n n id e et quom odo incipiat. tores et om nes im itatiuos probans ipsos longe a ueritate discedere,
IX (564B). D e triplici dem ocraticorum genere p er im agi­ subinde disserens de prem iis iustis et iniustis prepositis in hac uita et in
nem , et quo m o d o ex tutore tiran n u s prodierit. alia, et de im m ortalitate an im o ru m deque his que post m ortem boni ac
335 X (566D ). De con d itio n ib u s uite tirannice. m ali p a tiu n tu r n arratio n e H eri Pam phili d em onstrat. Q uo quidem libro
375 nihil potest esse diuinius.
Platonis A theniensis philosophi illustrissim i Celestis Politie liber nonus
an h o ta tu r in quo Socrates agit de u ita tiran n ica et prim o de necessariis C a p itu lu m I (595A). De ideis, et quod nullus im itato r illud quod
et non necessariis u o lu p tatib u s et de differentia in ter ciuitatem tiran n id i ens est agit, sed quoddam simile quale est ens.
obnoxiam et alias ciuitates et de uiris sim iliter ciuitatibus sim ilatis, m ax- II (597B). Q u o d om nis im itatio et m axim e pictoria tertii
340 ime de tirannico, et que m elior sit: cupiditas philosophic, honoris an a n a tu ra generati non ueritatis sed fan-
lucri, et huius am big u itatis decisio. 380 tasm atis im itatiu a sit tan tu m .
III (598D). Q u o d om nes tragici poete im itatores sint
C ap itu lu m I (571A). De an im e nostre d iu inatione in som nis et eius hab en d i, im prim isque H o m eru s qui de his que
irascibilis p a rte im m anitate, qu aliterq u e ex tractare nixus est nullam prorsus habuit
oligarchico p opularis fiat. scientiam .
345 II (572D ). Q u o m o d o ex dem ocratico p rodierit tiran n u s, 385 IV (600E). Q u o d H om erus ceterique poete im itatores
et cuiusm odi ipsius n a tu ra sit. idolorum sint, per exem plum pictoris ostendit,
III (575B). De m orib u s uite tirannice et qualiter ex et de quocunque tres esse artes et ultim am
p lu rib u s perfectus tiran n u s oriatu r. solum attingere poetam .
IV (576C ). De co m p aratio n e urbis ad tira n n u m illi V (602C ). Q u o d ex rationali de u eritate solum anim a
350 presid en tem . 390 diiudicat om nem que im itationem quam
V (578B). De calam itatib u s uite tirannice per im aginem , longissim e a ueritate discedere.
et q u o d nullus uero rege sit felicior, nullus V I (603E). Q u o d per rationem anim a ad u irtu tem ac
perfecto ty ra n n o sit m iserior. to leran tiam potissim um institu en d a sit.
V I (580D ). V tru m sapientie an honoris au t d iu itiaru m V II (605C ). Q u o d poete ceterique im itatores per irra-
355 potius uo lu p tas iocundior h ab en d a sit, et quod 395 tionalem anim e nostre partem in nobis solum
o m n ia a sola ratione recte iu d ican tu r. d o m in en tu r.
V II (583B). N ullam p re te r sapientis u eram ac sinceram V III (606E). H o m eru m ceterosque poetas im itatiuos e
esse u o lu p tatem p er im aginem ostendit. ciuitate eiiciendos esse iudicat.
 548 P A R T II
TE X T S 549

IX (608D). De im m o rtalitate an im o ru m et quod unicuique

platonicum latine graeceue suppleui uncos in tra qu ad rato s, scilicet quo
400 a n a tu ra p ro p riu m m alum in n atu m sit.
facilius annotationes Petri C andidi intelligantur.
X (611 A). Q u o d anim e im m ortales et eedem sem per exis-
tan t, et q uom odo illas speculari et intelligere
[Giber prim usj
oporteat.
327A P ortus A thenarum , P irea (f. 15r).
X I (612C). De prem iis iu sto ru m m alo ru m q u e suppliciis in A Sollennia Paladis (f. 15r).
405 presenti uita.
328D N ature senilis consuetudo (f. 16r).
X II (614B). N arratio H eri P am phili de statu an im aru m
D H inc C icero transtulit principium M aioris C athonis qui de
post m ortem qu ae uidisset.
senectute dicitur (f. 16r).
X III (616B). D escriptio o m n iu m celi speraru m per ima-
329B 7: Sophocles poeta etate Socratis (f. 16v).
ginem ac de uite m ortisque necessitate fatali.
E 7: T hem istoclis dictum , et corrige in libro T u lii De senectute (f.
410 X IV (617D). O ratio p ro p h ete ad anim as per sortes quasdam
17r).
denuo red itu ras ad corpora et q u aliter ab om ­
330D 1 P ulcherrim a inquisitio (f. 17r ) .
nibus u iu en d u m sit.
D 6 A ttende senex! (f. 17v).
X V (619B). De sortium electione per anim as et earu m reditu
331A 3 P in darus poeta (f. 17v).
ad n oua corpora, quo d que an im a im m aculata sit
A 7 Spes senectutis altrix (f. 17v)
415 u iu en d u m ut beatam uitam assequam ur.
331C 1 Incipit tractare de iustitia (f. 17v).
F iniunt capitula librorum decern Politie platonice que superius per or- D 2 Ju stitie term inus (f. 18r).
dinem an n o ta n tu r. Deo laus. E 2 Sim onides poeta (f. 18r).
332A 9 Elegans disputatio (f. 18r).
C 5: Q uom odo retorquit orationem Socrates ne responsoris
2 annotatur] incipit e Grecis literis conuersus in Latinas per Petrum Candidum Decem- fu n g atu r partibus (f. 18v).
brium p 10 iniuria lacessitus. (3 28 contra Trasimachum om. a 30 annotatur] incipit 333E 3: O p tim a confutatio (f. 19v).
p, et sic tnde reliquis in argumentulis 37 opinio Glaucoms] Glauco loquitur P 66-67 im-
mutetur ex imitetur corr. auct. in A a 101 ac] et A b Sa 112-113 deque ... eruditione om.
334A 1 : Q uis optim us custos exercitus (f. 19v).
Aa 126 et primo de prudentia om. Vb 145 iuste post ciuitatis Sb T b Vb 163 Socratis E 10 : Q uis bonus am icus (f. 20r).
disputatio Va 167 uariis post ingeniorum P 185 alias Vb Sb de om. a 195 dementia 335B 4: A ttende! (f. 20r).
ex dementia corr. auct. A : dementia S T V 208 nec ... nec] neque ... neque Sa 221
philosophi natura p 222 censenda] habenda p 244-5 cognitionem a] similitudinem p, sed C 4: Iu stitia h u m an a uirtus (f. 20r).
male 319, 325 m alim timocratica(-co); sed uid. apparatum infra ad lin. 3 2 7 320 similiter E 1 : Sanctissim am attende sententiam , contra illam Ciceronis,
om. A S T 327 demo- ex timo- corr. auct. in A 341 huius om. A a 346 sit natura. P 351 ut nem ini quis noceat (f. 2 0 v).
calamitate Vb 353 sit om. Sa A b 370 et ultimus om. Sa Ta 381 poete om. A b 382
habepdi om. a 397 imitatiuos om. a 400 proprium a natura. p 416-417 Finiunt 336D 6 L upus in fabula (f. 21r).
capitula centum quinquaginta quattuor librorum decern Politie platonicae felicissime. E 7 Iustitia om ni auro pretiosior (f. 2 1 v).
Deo laus. 3" 337A 4 Socratis ironia (f. 21v).
A 8 Faceta confutatio (f. 21v).
D 3 Q u id patiendum ignoranti (f. 21v).
E M orem attende socraticum (f. 22r).
51. Petri C an d id i m arg in alia selecta P latonis Celestis Politiae L atinam
338A C onfutatio elegantissim a (f. 22r).
eius uersionem illustrantia quae in codice 6 6 B ibliothecae U niuersitatis
B Vox Petri apostoli (f. 2 2 v).
Salam an tin ae e x aran tu r. Q u i codex olim inter libros fuit Alphonsi
C Difficilis o ritu r questio (f. 2 2 v).
episcopi B urgensis, ut ap p aret ex no ta in m arg. sup. fol. 8 8 r; uid. etiam D Facete (f. 2 2 v).
supra, App. 7. Singula post m arg in alia folium codicis Salam antini in-
E D em ocrathia (f. 2 2 v).
dicaui, ante au tem textus locum iuxta paginas S tephanianas, lineis textus
339A Q uid iustum secundum T rasim ach u m (f. 2 2 v).
Ioannis B urnet anno 1902 O xonii im pressi adhibitis. H ie illic contextum
C A ttende socraticas confutationes (f. 23r).

4U
550 P A R T II TEXTS 551

D 1 : Elegans confutatio (f. 23r). B 4: T ria bo n o ru m genera (f. 34v).

340A 1: P e rp ro p ria in d isp u tatio n e assidentium contentio (f. 23r). 358A 2: Q u i beatus esse cupit (f. 34v).
C 8: Irrisio socratica (f. 23v). B 1: D isputatio G lauconis contra S ocratem ex o ritu r (f. 35r).
341A 5: Ira tu s est T rasim ach u s q u ia ratio n e su p e ra tu r (f. 24r). B 3: De serpente. N ota (f. 35r).
B 3: Q u a m h u m ane agit Socrates! (f. 24r). C 2: A rcetipon disputationis (f. 35r).
C 1: L epide dictum (f. 24r). 359D 1: H inc C icero < i n > libris Officiorum de G ige platonico (f.
D 10 De arte lege (f. 24v). 36r).
E 4: U n d e m edicinalis (f. 24v). E 2: A nulus qui hom inem prestab at inuisibilem (f. 36r).
343A 4: R idiculum (f. 25r). 360C 3: A ttende religionem hinc ortum habuisse, u t iustitie fun-
B 4: P rin cip u m consuetudo (f. 25v). d am en ta tu e re n tu r (f. 36v).
D 2: Q u o d iustus iniquo uiro sem p er m inus h abeat (f. 25v). E 6 : Iniustus (f. 37r).
345A 5: Irrisio (f. 26v). 361A 4: H inc C icero totius iniustitie (f. 37r).
B 4: Irati superba responsio (f. 26v). B 5: H ec sim ilitudo posita est a C icero in libris De re publica (f.
D 1: Lege papa! (f. 27r). 37r).
E 4: Facetissim e (f. 27r). E 3: P en a sanctorum u i r < o r > u m (f. 37v).
347A 1 : N ota artifex! (f. 28r). 362A 3: Eschili dictum (f. 37v).
A 10 D am n u m o p tim o ru m m erces (f. 28r). B 5: Q u am beati iniusti et ipocrite (f. 37v).
D 2: Idem Fit in urbe Ian u e (f. 28r). 363D 1: Paradisi ebrietas sem piterna (f. 38v).
348C 12 I u s t i t i a < m > generosam esse fatuitatem (f. 29r). 364A 5: V itam aulicam atten d e (f. 39r).
D 2 : E ubolia b o num consilium (f. 29r). B 5: Sortilegi ac uates (f. 39r).
349B 2: N o u a Socratis arg u m en tatio (f. 29v). 365A 7: Ingeniosi nota (f. 39v).
B 11 M irabilem dicendi atten d e p roprietatem ! (f. 29v). C 1: Ip ocrita beatus (f. 39v).
350C 10 C onclusio T rasim ach i (f. 30v). D 4: [etatv xe 7tei0 ou<; StSaaxaXoi acxpiav 8T|p.Tp(opt.xr)v xe xai
D 9: P ro p riu m u irtu ti et erubescentis T rasim ach i (f. 30v). Sixavtxriv 8 t8 ovxs<;, e£ cov xa pev nelaopev, xa 8 e [kaaopsQa, cix;
E 8: V e rb a comice p ro p rietatis (f. 30v). tcXeovexxouvxei; S ixt^v prj StSovat. A dsunt eloquentie persua-

351B 1: E xem plum ciuitatis (f. 31r). sionisque m agistri concionatoriam et iudicialem docentes
C 4: Faceta responsio et in tem pore (f. 31r). sapientiam , ex quibus p artim suadendo partim uiolando
D 9: O p u s iniustitie (f. 31r). nullas in iu riaru m dabim us penas.] O p tim u s C icero (f.
3 52 A 10 [“ At uero iusti, am ice, su n t d ii’’] D eus iustus (f. 31v). 40r).
C 4: Iniustos sine iustitia nihil agere posse (f. 32r). D 7: De diis (f. 40r).
D 8: Q u e m ad m o d u m u iuere necesse sit (f. 32r). 366A 1: Q u a n tu m prosit iniustum esse (f. 40r).
E 2; P u lch errim am d isp u tatio n em . N ota (f. 32r). A 4: Priscam de inferni cruciatibus opinionem attende (f. 40r).
353B 14 O p tim e concludit (f. 32v). B 1: P rophete et uates deorum filii (f. 40r).
D 3: O p u s anim e (f. 32v). 367A 1: D octrinam ab adolescentia confferre p lu rim u m (f. 40v).
E 7: Iu stitia u irtu s anim e (f. 33r). 371A 10: H inc C alistratus iuris consultus Pandectis de nundinis (f.
E 10 Sanctissim a conclusio (f. 33r). 43v).
354B 1: Sim ilitudo (f. 33v). A 14: N egociatores (f. 43v).
B 9: N ihil scire (f. 33v). D 4: Institores (f. 44r).
D 7: M ercatores (f. 44r).
[L iber secundus] E 5: [piaOcoxot]: M ercenarii (f. 44r).
357A 1: H ie est ille singularis liber a q u o C icero tran stu lit disp u tatio ­ 372A 1: Iustitia in necessitate (f. 44r).
nem contra iustitiam in libris suis De re publica (f. 34v). C 1: V ita sanctorum p r i < o r > m u m (f. 44v).
552 P A R T II T E X TS 553

c 4 Fercula p au p e ru m (f. 44v). B 7: V erba passionum earu m note que sunt in anim a (F 51 r).
D 4 Facete (f. 44v). C 6: Fucum m en d atiu m aliquando utile (1. 51r).
E 6 V era et salubris ciuitas (f. 44v). D 5: Q uod D eus n u n q u am m en tia tu r (f. 51v).
373A 2 O rn a m e n ta u rb iu m o p u len tissim aru m (f. 4 5 r). E 3: N ullus insipiens aut insanus Deo gratus (f. 51v).
B 5 A ttende quae in u rb ib u s nullius sunt utilitatis uel
necessitatis (f. 45r). [L iber tertius]
B 7: Ipocrite: histriones ueste m u ta ti (f. 45r). 387E 3: C elestem sententiam diuini Platonis (f. 54r).
D 1: M edici p ro p te r in te m p e ra n tia m (f. 45r). 388A 7: E legantissim um carm en H om eri de Achille (f. 54v).
E 6: O rigo belli (f. 45v). B 4: P riam us rex (f. 54v).
374A 6: A ttende m ultiscie! (f. 45v). C 1: De T h etide lo q u itu r (f. 54v).
B 9: U t q uisque u n u m agat ex ercitium (f. 45v). C 4: Fletus Iouis de H ectore (f. 54v).
D 1: Q u o d res m ilitaris exercitatione et eruditione solum per- C 7: Idem de Sarpedonis m orte uicina et ineuitabili (F 54v).
cip iatu r (f. 46r). D 5: C o rru m p u n t bonos m ores colloquia p rau a (f. 54v).
E 4: N on om nis n a tu ra m ilitie congruit (f. 46r). E 2: R ationi credendum (f. 54v).
375A 2: De custodum u rb is n a tu ra sim ilitudo p u lch errim a (f. 46r). E 5: N on conuenire eruditis uiris et grauibus risum (f. 54v).
B 1: [apaxov xe xai dvt'x7]xov 06po<;]: Iraco ndia [w ] inex- 389B 2: V eritas plurim i facienda est (f. 55r).
pugnabilis (f. 46v). B 7: P rincipibus licere m endatium aliquando pro utilitate
B 7: Q u o d custos iracu n d u s esse debeat (f. 46v). ciuium (f. 55r).
C 6: [ttoGev apoc 7rpaov xai peyaX60upov rj0o<; euprjaopev; evavxta yap D 7: T em p eran tia adolescentibus necessaria (f. 55v).
tcou OupoeiBel 7tpaeia 96011 ;: Q u id igitur, in q u am , faciem us E 1: C o n tin en tia p rincipum (F 5 5 v).
m an su etu m et irascibilem , q u em a d m o d u m in ter se com- E 6: V ersus H om eri de D iom ede (f. 55v).
ponem us m orem ? H u m a n e qu ip p e n atu re iracu n d ia est 390B 6: Q u am im p u d en ter de Ioue et Iunone (f. 55v).
aduersa]: Ira c u n d ia h u m a n e n a tu re aduersa est (f. 46v). C 6 : V incula V eneris et M artis (f. 56r).
E 1: N a tu ra gen ero so ru m can iu m [jzc] intelligere (f. 46v). D 4: H o m eru s de U lixe (f. 56r).
376A 5: C a n u m n a tu ra eadem ac philosopha (f. 47r). E 4: P henix Achilis pedagogus (f. 56r).
B 5: N a tu ra m sciendi a u id am (f. 47r). 391A 6 : H o m eru s de Achile contra A polinem irato (f. 56r).
B 11 N a tu ra philosophi custodis ciuitatis et iracu n d a (f. 47r). B 2: Sperchius de quo Statius plerum que m em init (f. 56v).
C 7: S eq u itu r custodum eru d itio (f. 47v). C 3: C h iro n prudentissim us preceptor (f. 56v).
E 4: Q u o d custodes in m usica p riu s su n t erudiendi (f. 47v). C 9: T heseus N eptuni Filius, P erithous Iouis (f. 56v).
377A 4: F abulas p rim u m pueris refferendas esse (f. 47v). E 1 : N ullum m alum a Deo posse Fieri (f. 56v).
B 5: Ne m alis fabulis p u e ro ru m m entes im b u a n tu r (f. 48r). E 8: A ttende: de Iouis ara in Ideo pago (F 56v).
C 4: P ro p rietatem m ax im am (f. 48r). 392A 13: P o etarum et o rato ru m d a < m > p n a t oppinionem (f. 57r).
D 4: H esiodi et H o m eri fabule m aiores (f. 48r). E 2: R ecitat quedam e n a rra ta ab H om ero in principio H eliadis
380B 6: D iu in am legem et o b se ru a n d a m (f. 50r). [,w] ad exem plum (F 57v).
C 6: S ancta lex (f. 50r). 393A 7: V arietas locutionis (F 57v).
D 8: A ttende latenti ignorantissim e! (f. 50r). B 7: Q u id n arratio (F 57v).
E 3: Q u e optim e se h a b e n t u a ria ri n eq u eu n t (f. 50r). C 5: Q u id im itatio (F 58r).
381B 4: D eus et que sua su n t optim e se h ab ent (f. 50v). D 8: H istoria descripta ab H om ero qu em ad m o d u m C hrisis
C 1: D eum u irtu o su m esse et p u lch errim um (f. 50v). Filiam ab A gam em none sibi arrep tam supplex deposcebat
C 9: D eus sim plex (f. 50v). (F 58r).
E 5: B lasphem iam in D eum u ita n d a m om nino (f. 51 r) . 394B 1: Sim plex narratio (F 58v).
382A 4: V eru m m en d atiu m (F 51r). B 8: M os tragediarum (F 58v).
'iiihi ,l. miiimiwwiwi i i-ii.nii.iii! 11 t i l 1 ■■ - . U i i h i ^ n iii i i i K i i i i i
554 P A R T II TE X T S 555

c 3: D ith iram b u m genus carm in u m (f. 58v). B 1: C elestem lege eruditionem ! (f. 63v).
E 1: Excludit a ciuitate im m itatio n em om nem (f. 59r). C 3: C o n suetudo facit hab itu m (f. 63v).
E 8: Lege, histrio! (f. 59r). C 8: Elegans sim ilitudo (f. 63v).
395A 8: R apsodi uulgo contionantes, ypochrite hystriones facie uel D 8: D ecorum a m usica afferri (f. 64r).
ueste m u tati (f. 59r). 402A 1 : B ona indoles id agit (f. 64r).
C 3: Q u e custodum operatio (f. 59r). A 7: N ota d iu in am com parationem de elem entis litteraru m
D 1: Im itatio ex p u eritia tran sit in hab itum (f. 59v). (f. 64r).
D 5: C o n tra m im os et histriones com icos ac tragedos (f. 59v). B 9: Q u i < s > perfectus m usicus in an im a (f. 64r).
D 6: U t de N iobe legitur (f. 59v). D 1: H ec ilia laudabilis sententia: si sapientiam occulis subicere
396A 8: V ilior im itatio (f. 59v). possem us m irabiles sui am ores excitaret (f. 64v).
C 5: Q ualis im itatio uiri boni (f. 60r). D 10 A ttende, P an o rm ita, quem am orem p u ero ru m Plato in-
D 2: A ttende! telligat! (f. 64v).
E 4: Q u e narratio uiri boni (f. 60r). E 6: N ulla u irtu ti cum uoluptate com m unio (f. 64v)
397A 1: O ra to r est u ir bonus et dicendi peritus (f. 60v). 403A 4: N ulla uoluptas u en erea m aior aut intensior (f. 64v).
B 4: C o nsuetudo stultorum (f. 60v). A 7: Q u id rectus am o r (f. 64v).
C 8: De poetis nota (f. 60v). B 4: L egem am an d i (f. 65r).
D 6: M usica m ixta su au io r (f. 61r). C 6: E leganter dictum (f. 65r).
D 10 V iru m biffarium et m u ltiffarium . A ttende (f. 61r). D 2: B onum an im u m corpus optim um prestare (f. 65r).
398A 5: Irrisio facetissim a (f. 61r). E 4: E b rietatem exercitanti custodi u itan d u m (f. 65r).
C 11 C a n tu m ex tribus constare (f. 6 lv). E 7: Facete (f. 65v).
E 1: A rm onie flebiles (f. 62r). 404A 4: C on su etu d in em ath letaru m rep robat (f. 65v).
E 9: [Q ue igitur molles ac conuiuales feru n tu r arm onie?]: A r­ B 7: M o d erata gim nastica circa bellum (f. 65v).
m onie coniugales (f. 62r). B 10 H om erus de sobrietate heroum in expeditione (f. 65v).
399A 5: A rm onie m ilitares (f. 62r). C 3: Lege, Gallice! (f. 65v).
A 7: Lege laudabilem arm o n iam in bello et alteram in pace (f. 62r). C 6: C o n d im en ta u alitu d in i co n traria sunt (f. 65v).
B 3: H inc m agnus Basilius de D au id p ro p h eta (f. 62r). D 1: M en sa siracusana (f. 6 6 r).
C 7: M ultico rd iu m . P a n a rm o n iu m . (f. 62v). D 5: C aue tibi a puella, u ir bellice (f. 6 6 r).
C 10 T rig o n i et putidi (f. 62v). D 11 P ro p ria sim ilitudo (f. 6 6 r).
D 1 : M u ltiarm o n iu m (f. 62v). 405A 1 : Ex in tem p eran tia iudices et m edicos in honore haberi
D 3: T ibie. T ibicines. (f. 62v). (f. 6 6 r).
D 7: L yra et cithara. Fistula pastoralis (f. 62v). B 6: Lege, cauilator! (f. 6 6 v).
E 5: A ttende: p er canem (f. 62v). C 8: C o n tra uoluptarios et delicatos (f. 6 6 v).
E 8: S eq u itu r de rithm is (f. 62v). D 5: T em p o rib u s Esculapii huiusm odi m o rb o ru m nom ina in­
400A 1 : E leganter (f. 62v). cognita (f. 6 6 v).
A 4: T re s species rith im o ru m (f. 62v). 406A 7: H erodicus prim us in u en to r m edicinalis pedagogice (f.
B 1 : D am on m usicus fam osissim us (f. 62v). 67r).
B 4: E noplius (f. 63r). C 1: Facete dictum . L aus Esculapii in sum m a (f. 67r).
B 5: D actilus heroicus com positus (f. 63r). D 3: Facetissim e (f. 67 r).
D 6: A ttende que Seneca refert in epistolis (f. 63r). E 4: M o rtem ab erum nis liberare (f. 67v).
E 1 : E uithia: bonus mos (f. 63r). 407A 7: Phocilidis dictum notabile (f. 67v).
401A 1 : Q uom odo pictura et reliqua ad q u an d am m usice refert B 4: S u p eruacaneam corporis sanationem ad om nia esse in-
consonantiam (f. 63v). utilem f. 67v).
556 P A R T II T E X TS 557

C 7: Q u ib u s m edicinalem osten d it E sculapius (f. 67v). E 1: T ellus parens om nium (f. 72v).
E 3: V ir politicus E sculapius (f. 6 8 r). 415A 4: [ 6 0£o<; itXaxTtav]: D eus om nium creator (f. 73r).
E 4: L aus filiorum E sculapii in bello T ro ia n o (f. 6 8 r). B 3: P rincipibus Dei m an d atu m [cum signo ut loci potions usque ad
408A 6 : Facile est sanare m o d erato s (f. 6 8 r). 415D 1] (f. 73r).
B 8: P in d aru s T ra g e d u s de E sculapio m entitus (f. 6 8 r). C 5: O racu lu m lege (f. 73r).
G 3: A u reu m d ictum (f. 6 8 r). E 8: A ttende, im perator! (f. 73v).
D 10: Q u is m edicus ingeniosissim us sit (f. 6 8 v). 416A 2: N ota [cum signo loci potioris] (f. 73v).
E 3: C o rp u s an im a, n o n co rpore cu ra ri (f. 6 8 v). A 7: N e lupus ex cane Fiat [cum signo loci potioris usque ad 416B 3]
409A 1: Q ualis iudex e co n trario m edici (f. 6 8 v). (f. 73v).
A 8: Bone indolis adolescentes perfacile decipi (f. 6 8 v). D 3: A ttende! C o n tra A ristotelem qui secundo Politice sue dixit
B 4: Iudicem senem , non au tem iu u en em esse opportere Socratem in politia sua om nia fecisse com unia cum id
(f. 69r). solum intelligatur de custodibus qui su n t-m in o r ciuitatis
C 3: Q u i bo n am habet a n im am bonus est (f. 69r). pars, ut sequenti libro co n tin etu r (f. 74r).
C 4: N a tu ra m ali iudicis et indocti (f. 69r). E 4: Sanctissim um attende m andatum ! [cum signo loci potions us­
410A 1 : A ttende diligenter! (f. 69r). que ad finem libri] (f. 74r).
C 5: M usicam et g im nasticam ob an im e curam solum inuentas
f. 69v). [L iber q uartus]
D 3: M o d eratio m usice et gim nastice q u a n tu m prosit (f. 70r). 419A 2: D u b iu m attende (f. 76r).
E 1: N a tu ra m an su eta philosophia (f. 70r). 420A 2: [£7uaixiot]: Episithii qui pro solo u i < c > t u laborant
E 10 M o d erati an im am uirilem et sapientem esse (f. 70r). (f. 76r).
411A 5: Lege, qui cantu et m usica assidue delectaris (f. 70r). C 4: Elegans et p erp ro p ria sim ilitudo (f. 76v).
C 2: D iscolia (f. 70v). 421A 5: P ericulum u sitatum (f. 77r).
C 4: Q u o d gim nastica absq u e m usica nihil iu u at (f. 70v). D 4: D iuitie ac p au p ertas artifices co rru m p u n t (f. 77v).
E 4: [e7U 8 r) 8 u’ ovx£ xouxoo, co<; £otX£ 8 uo Ttyya. 0£ov £ycoy’ ocv xtva 422A 6 : M irabilis responsio (f. 77v).
cpair)v SeScoxevcu xoi? av0po)n:oi?] M usica ac gim nastica a Deo B 3: Bellum principis nostri Philippi M arie co n tra Italas
date u id e n tu r (f. 70v). ciuitates V enetias et F lorentiam (f. 78r).
412A 4: Q uis perfectus m usicus in a n im a (f. 70v). D 1: A ttende legationem ! (f. 78r).
A 9: [£7tiaxaxou]: R ex u rbis h u iu sm o d i (f. 7 lr). E 7: Q uelibet urbs plures in se habet urbes (f. 78r).
C 2: Principes seniores esse o p p o rtere et hinc u u lg ari corrupto 423A 1 : U rb s d iu itu m separatim et p au p eru m (f. 78v).
uerb o segnore, id est, seniore (f. 71r). A 7: M ag n am esse u rbem que tem perate colatur (f. 78v).
C 12 P rinceps non p ru d en s solum , sed etiam potens sit (f. 71r). D 4: Q u isq u e agat quod nouerit (f. 79r).
D 9: Q u i < s > fu tu ru s sit b onus princeps (f. 71r). E 4: E ru ditionem et nu tritio n em (f. 79r).
E 5: N ota. In can tati. V iolati. O b liti uel decepti (f. 71v). 424A 1: [om nia ueteri prouerbio am icorum co m m unia esse op-
413B 4: Q u i decepti d ic a n tu r (f. 71v). portet]: V etus p ro u erb iu m (f. 79r).
B 9: Q u i uiolati (f. 71v). B 3: N ihil in n o u an d u m ; attende! (f. 79r).
C 1: Q u i incan tati d ic a n tu r (f. 71v). C 5: Q u a n tu m m usice com m utatio im portet (f. 79v).
D 7: C o n certatio in can tatio n is (f. 72r). D 1: A rcem in m usica condendam (f. 79v).
E 1 : Q ualis p rin cip atu d ignus (f. 72r). 425B 7: P recepta sine decretis nihil ualere co n tra Senece opinionem
414A 2: H onores boni principis (f. 72r). (f. 80r).
C 4: Phenices figm entis d e le c ta n tu r et furtis (f. 72v). C 2: O m n e simile appetit suum simile (1. 80r).
D 1: F igm entum ait ut in C a d m i n a rra tu r historia (f. 72v). C 10: Q u e officia scripture m inim e m an d an d a u id ean tu r
(f. 80r).
..... as**-: *
 P A R T II TE X T S 559

426A 1: D e egris in tem p eratis atten d e sim ilitudinem (f. 80v). 435A 1 : P erproprie (f. 87r).
B 9: S im ilitudo ciu itatu m ad egrotos (f. 81 r). C 8: O m n ia b ona difficilia (f. 87v).
D 7: H om ines inflati et crudeles (f. 81 r). E 3: T rip a rtita orbis descriptio (f. 87v).
E 8: Y dra H erculis (f. 81r). E 6: [oi xaxa tt|v ©pax 7jv x£ xai 2xu0txr|v]: T raches et Scite a
4^7B 2: A ttende A ppollinis responsa cui attrib u it curam n a tu ra iracundi (f. 87v).
cerem o n iaru m et religionum (f. 81v). E 7: G reci philosophia et studiis ob lectan tu r (f. 87v).
C 2: C red o positum a S ocrate ut hanc partem intactam 436A 1: Fenices au ari sunt (f. 87v).
p retereat (f. 81v). A 8: A rrige aures, B urgensis optim e! (f. 8 8 r).
E 6 : Incipit tractare de u irtu tib u s politicis et iustitie indagatione C 9: S im ilitudinem attende (f. 8 8 r).
(f. 82r). D 4: Alia sim ilitudo (f. 8 8 r).
428A 2: Sim ilitudo (f. 82r). 437D 2: Q u ed am species desideriorum (f. 89r).
B 1: S apientia, id est p ru d e n tia (f. 82r). 438A 3: C onsidera, Epicure! O m nes bona d esiderant (f. 89r).
B 6 : [q eOPouXia]: E ubolia: b o n u m consilium (f. 82r). C 6: C irca scientias (f. 89v).
D 6 : C u sto d iaria scientia p ro to ta urbe (f. 82v). D 3: [oixoSoptxr)]: A rchetitoria [.tie ] (f. 89v).
E 3: A ttende custodes m in o rem n u m eru m urbis o btinere (f. 439B 3: C o m p ro b at anim e diuisionem (f. 90r).
82v). B 8: Sim ilitudo sagitarii (f. 90r).
429C 5: Q u id p roprie fortitudo (f. 83r). D 1: [£x Xo^tapou]: Ex ratione (f. 90v).
D 4: Elegans sim ilitudo de tincto rib u s (f. 83r). D 4: [xo Xo^iaTixov ... xo £7u 0 op.7|xix 6 v]: R ationale et appetibile (f.
430A 2: Leges ut colorem (f. 83v). 90 v).
A 7: [r| rjSovri]: V oluptas (f. 83v). E 3: [xo 8 e 8 tj xou 0upoo xai a> 0u{xoup,£0a: Q u id autem furoris
B 1: [Xutct| x£ xai epo^oc; xai £7ci0 u[ita: aut tristitia, tim or, ap- quo irascim ur]: T e rtia pars anim e: irascibile (f. 90v).
petitusue]: T ristitia pro dolore. D olor, tim or et appetitus E 7: N otabile de L eontio Aglaionis (f. 90v).
anim i co n stan tiam p e ru e rtu n t (f. 83v). 440A 5: Iram appetibile aduersari (f. 90v).
430D 6 : T e m p e ra n tia iu stitiam u id e tu r preire (f. 84r). B 5: Tronice, p uto (f. 9 lr).
E 3: C o n so n an tiam q u a n d a m et arm oniam esse tem perantiam C 1 : Celestis ratio (f. 9 lr).
(f. 84r). C 7: H ec B rutus legisse u id etu r ut in ipsius uita constat (f. 91r)
431D 4: A d ap tat ciuitatem ad hom inis an im u m (f. 84v). E 2: Irascibile pro ratione dep u g n at (f. 91r).
D 9: T e m p e ra n tia in p rin cip ib u s et subditis (f. 84v). E 10 T ria genera in u rb e, totidem in an im a (f. 9 lv).
432A 3: [8 ia roxaaiv]: D iap asso n (f. 85r). 441A 7: E xem plum p u ero ru m (f. 9 lv ).
B 7: Incipit de iu stitia disserere (f. 85r). B 4: H om erus de U lixe (f. 91v).
C 5: N ota Dei auxilium im p lo ran d u m in principio cuiuslibet C 4: C oncludit eadem que in anim a, eadem et in urbe esse (f.
preclari operis (f. 85r). 91 v).
D 7: P ro p rie (f. 85v). D 11 : N ota (f. 92r).
E 8 : L epide dictum (f. 85v). E 4: Q u o d rationale in anim a debeat im perare et irascibile
433B 3: Iu stitia q uid sit (f. 85v). subire (f. 92r).
B 10 Iu stitia ceteris u irtu tib u s potestatem prestat (f. 85v). E 8 : A ttende quid agat m usice et gim nastice tem peries (f. 92r).
C 4: D u b itatio q ue u irtu s p re ceteris bonam efficiat ciuitatem (f. 442A 6 : [inest anim a pecu n iaru m a n a tu ra insatiabili] P ecuniarum
8 6 r). insatiabile (f. 92r).
434A 9: S en ten tia a u rea (f. 8 6 v). C 2: Q ue ratio (f. 92v).
C 4: M alificentia (f. 8 6 v). D 2: T em p e ra n tia q u id sit (f. 92v).
D 6 : E x eq u itu r tandem q u e in secundo pollicitus est libro 443A 3: V ir bonus qualis fuerit lege (f. 92v).
f. 87r). B 7: Q ue potestas iustitia sit (f. 93r).
 560 P A R T II TE X T S 561

G 4:Idolum iustitie (f. 93r). 456E 7: N ihil utilius ciuitati (f. lO lr).
C 9:
Q u id pro p rie iustitia, hie et inferius elegantissim e 457A 6 : Egregie positum : u irtu tem pro uirtu tib u s (f. 1 0 1 r ) .
d escrib itu r (f. 9 3 r). B 7: T a m q u a m u n d am (f. lO lr).
D 5: M usice co ncordantie (f. 93r). D 7: M ax im u m b o n u m (f. lO lv).
444C 10: C o n fo rm itas an im e et corporis (f. 9 4 r). 458A 2: Io cu n d a et p erp ro p ria sim ilitudo (f. lO lv).
D 13: V irtu s anim e sanitas est, m alitia infirm itas (f. 94r). B 9: A ttende, A ristoteles, qui agricolas m elius obsecuturos huic
445A 9: C o n clu d it nihil m elius esse q u a m iuste agere (f. 9 4 r). legi qu am custodes reris (f. 1 0 2 r).
C 1: H ec explicatio fit in libris sequentibus p ro p ter interpella- C 6 : H ec est com unio ilia contra quam disputat A ristoteles (f.
tionem factam S ocrati in libro im m ediate succedenti (f. 1 0 2 r).
94v). D 5: Lepidissim e (f. 102r).
D 1: M odos q u in q u e p o litiaru m , totidem et anim e (f. 94v). D 8: Lege, L actanti ignorantissim e, qui Socratem et Platonem
D 5: R e g n u m in u n o principe, aristocratia in p luribus (f. 94v). diuinos hom ines im pudicitie arguis! (f. 1 0 2 v).
459A 2: Sim ilitudo pulcherrim a (f. I 0 2 v).
[L iber quintus] C 8 : P rincipi necesse plerum que m endacio uti (f. 102v).
449B 7: P ro p rie positum (f. 96r). D 7: M irabile dictu (f. 103r).
C 5: V etus p ro u erb iu m (f. 96r). E 5: N uptie sollem nes (f. I03r).
450D 3: Lepide (f. 96r). 460A 8: Lege “ sortes iaciendas” (f. 103r).
451A 4: A d astria [.ne] dea, L apsus apud Athicos [sell. , Atticos] (f. B 1: L icentia p ro b o ru m iuuenum (f. 103r).
97r). B 9: C o m m u n es uiris et feminis principatus (f. 103r).
B 7: Lex (f. 97r). C 1: De n u trim en to p u ero ru m (f. 103v).
C 2: D ra m a cantus est vel fabula (f. 97r). D 3: M ediocri tem pore lactentur (f. 103v).
C 4: Incipit tractare de uxoribus et pueris custodum urbis (f. E 4: Q u e uiris et fem inis etas conuenientior ad gen eran d u m (f.
97v). 103v).
D 4: S im ilitudo canum (f. 9 7 v). 461A 3: A udi, A ristoteles et L actanti, quam libera sit fem inarum
452A 2: M ulieres custodum in gim nastica et m usica eru d iendas esse licentia in Platonis et Socratis politia! (f. 103v).
(f. 97v). A 7: Supplicationes diis im m ortalibus in m atrim oniis Fiende (f.
A 10: R id icu lu m (f. 97v). 104v).
C 5: N o u a a d m ira ri hom ines (f. 98r). B 9: Lege qui Socratem im pudicitie condem pnas! (f. 104r).
C 9: C retenses et L acedem onii p rim o gim nasia instituere (f. D 2: Q uom odo in ter se dignosci po teru n t patres et filii (f. 104r).
98r). 462A 9: N ihil deterius quam quod ciuitatem d iuidat (f. 104v).
D 6 : Solum m alu m irrid e n d u m (f. 98r). D 6: Sim ilis < illi > q ua bene regitur ciuitas (f. 105r).
E 4: Intellige no u am in q uisitionem (f. 98v). 463A 8 : [’Ev jj.£v xciis noXXau; Searco-cai;, iv Be tau; Bir]p.oxpon:oupivat?
453B 2: Idem in terro g ato r et responsor Socrates (f. 98v). auto xouvopa touto, apxovxai;: In pluribus, inquit,
D 5: Elegans dictum (f. 98v). dom inos, in quibus autem dem ocratia inest, principes]:
D 10: D elphini A rionis (f. 98v). D om ini in pluribus uo can tu r principes (f. 105r).
454A 1: [r) Buvapu; Tfj$ avTiXoyixf)i; xiyyr\<;\ sophistice uis discipline]: 464B 5: A ttende, lector, diligenter et intelliges de q u a com unione
D isciplinam sophisticam irrid et (f. 9 9 r). Socrates loq u itu r, tam in m ulieribus q uam in facultatibus
G 1: Facetissim e in sophistas (f. 99r). (f. 106r).
455B 7: D ifferentia n a tu ra ru m (f. lOOr). C 9: Q u a n te eru m p n e seq u an tu r eos qui separate u iu u n t (f.
C 4: O p e ra m u liebria (f. lOOr). 106r).
E 1: M u lier in om nibus uiro debilior est (f. lOOr). D 9: N ihil proprii p reter corpus (f. 106v).
E 6 : D iuerse fem inarum n atu re (f. lOOr). E 1: D e pueris nota (f. 106v).
562 P A R T II T E X TS 563

465A 5: Seniores preesse iu u en ib u s (f. 106v). 474C 8 : Q u id am are uere sit (f. 113r).
A 11 T im o r et p u d o r (f. 106v). D 5: De am ore licito apud ueteres G recos (f. 113v).
B 12 M alo ru m m in im a intellige (f. 107r). D 8: [<jip.6 <;: sim us]: Sim us: pressis n arib u s (f. 113v).
D 3: O lim p io n ico ru m u ita (f. 107r). E 2: [peXocyx^P01^ M elanelori]: M elanelorus: in ter fuscum et
466A 1: A ttende ciues h abere b ona a custodibus sep arata (f. 107r). pallidum (f. 113v).
A 8: A uxiliato ru m vita (f. 107v). 475A 4 Lepide (f. 113v).
B 4: C ustodes nostre etatis (f. 107v). B 8 C oncludit quis uerus philosophus d icatu r (f. 113v).
C 1: H esiodi d ictum (f. 107v). E 2 In a p p aren tia lo q u itu r (f. 114r).
E 1: Incipit de re m ilitari tractatu s elegantissim us (f. 108r). 476A 4 D isputatio a P latone usitata ut u eru m philosophum
46 7A 3: S im ilitudo figulorum (f. 108r). edisserat (f. 114r).
E 2: P ueri docte eq u itare assuescant (f. 108v). 477D 7 Scientia p o ten tiaru m excellentissim a om nium (1. Il5 v ).
468A 1: De his que ad bellum p ertin en t (f. I08v). E 1 Q u id opinio am b ig itu r (f. 115v).
B 12 H onores strenuo conferendi m iliti (f. 109r). C 8 Io cunda am biguitas (f. 115v).
D 1: H o m eru s de A iace (f. 109r). 478E 1 [In ter hec autem uisa est ea qu am opinionem appellam us.
D 7: Q u a n te bonis gratie et honores (f. 109r). Necesse est itaque aliquid querere utriu sq u e participans,
E 5: A urei generis p rim u m (f. 109r). entis scilicet et non entis, et quod n eu tru m p u ru m uocite-
E 8: H esiodus illustrium u iro ru m anim as post obitum deificari tu r. Q u o d si a p p aru erit, iure ipsum dicem us opinabile,
trad it (f. I09v). sum m is sum m a, m ediis tribuentes m edia]: N eutrum inter
469B 1 : Lex (f. 109v). scientiam et inscitiam , id esse opinabile (f. I l 6 v).
B 8 : De captiu itate (f. 109v). 479C 1: E nigm a de eunucho cum pum ice in sanibuci arbore percu-
C 8: C a d a u e ra non spolianda (f. 1 1 Or). ciente uespertilionem (f. 117r ) .
D 6: Q u a m proprie de ignorantia! (f. llO r). E 1: Q u i o p in en tu r (f. 117r).
E 7: A rm a non deferen d a tem plis (f. llO r). E 7: Q u i intelligunt et agnoscunt (f. Il7 r).
470B 4: Bellum ac seditionem in ter se differre (f. llO r). 480A 6 : Philodoxi: am atores opinionis (f. 117r ) .
C 5: Q u id proprie bellari (f. llO v).
471A 1: Pia et laudabilis opinio (f. llO v). [L iber sextus]
B 3: Q u o u sq u e g eren d u m bellum (f. l l l r ) . 484C 3: Q u i custodes u rb iu m eligendi sunt (f. I 2 0 v).
B 8: [Gl. Sic puto , in q u it, nostros m ilites erga hostes se gerere C 6: Q u i cecis similes h a b ean tu r (f. 1 2 0 v).
o p p o rtere. E rg a b arb aro s uero ut nunc ad inuicem se ha- 485A 10: N obilissim am philosophi n atu ram contem plare (t. 1 2 1 r ) .
ben t G reci]: Im m o Italici (f. l l l r ) . C 10: N ihil m agis pro p riu m sapientie q uam ueritas (f. 12lr).
C 8: H ec totius operis pars difficillim a (f. l l l r ) . E 3: Q ualis verus philosophus sit futurus (f. 1 2 lv).
472A 4: G rau issim am tem p estatem . A ttende. (f. l l l v ) . 486B 10: Q u aliter ex iu u en tu te n atu ra philosophi dignoscitur
C 4: [riap a 8 ei'Ypon:o<; apa evexa]: Exem pli causa q uid sit iustitia (f. 1 2 1 v).
(f. l l l v ) . C 7: M em o riam philosopho m axim e conuenire (f. I22r).
D 4: E xim ia pictoris sim ilitudo (f. 112r). 487A 2: E loquentiam platonicam (f. 122r).
E 3: Persim ile (f. 112r). A 6 : M om us: conuitiorum D eus, de quo J a n u s (f. I22r).
473A 1 : O p eratio inferior o ratio n e ad u eritatem (f. 112r). B 7: Persim ilis com paratio inter sophistam et taxillorum col-
C 11 H ec est ilia celestis et a u re a sen tentia q u am Boetius a lusorem (f. 1 2 2 v).
P latone su m p tam refert: beatas fore res publicas, etc. (f. E 6: Ironia (f. 123r).
1 1 2 v). 488A 6 : T ragelaphus: < H > yrcus et ceruus (f. 123r).
E 6 : O m n es plebei et insipientes huic opinioni contrarii A 7: Persim ilis com paratio nauis gubernatoris ad principem
(f. 1 1 2 v). (f. I23r).
564 P A R T II
TE X TS 565
C 4 M an d ra g o ra sensus ebetat (f. 123r) D 9: O m n ia m agna lubrica [et bona difficilia add. manus altera
E 4 M etheoroscopus: co n tem p lato r m u tatio n u m aeris (f. 123v). coaeua] (f. 130r).
490A 1 V eritatem philosopho im p rim is conuenire (f. 124v). 498A 3: [Xeyoo 8 e xaXeTtcoTocTov to 7repi tou<; Xoyou<;: dico autem dif-
A 8 Q uis uerus philosophus (f. I24v).
ficillim um quod circa serm ones logicos uersatur]: Dif-
B 3 [Q ui re ipsa scientie a m a to r sit ... ulterius procedens non
Ftcillimum circa logicos serm ones (f. 130r).
hebescit aut am ore desinit usque quo illius quod est B 1 Sol H eraclitius (f. 130r).
cuiuslibet attig erit n a tu ra m ... cuique etiam uere enti se B 8 V ita beata et uirtuosis digna principibus (f. 130v).
m iscens et ad iu n g en s u e rita te m intellectum que p artu rien s C 9 Facete (f. 130v).
uere uiuit et intelligit ...]: D e Deo lo q u itu r (f. 124v). 499A 4 Liberos et honestos serm ones ueritatem in q u iren tib u s con­
C 9: Q u ae philosopho u irtu tes co n g ru u n t (f. 125r). uenire (f. 13 lr).
491A 7: R aras n atu ras philosophas exoriri (f. 125r). B 7: S ententiam lege celestem diuini Platonis (f. 131 r).
B 7: M iru m : u irtu tes aliq u an d o n atu re philosophe ad u ersari (f. 500B 4: Lege, m aliuole, qui de gestis hominum* continuo serm ones
I25r). agit! (f. 131 v).
C 1 : Q ue bona ap p ellan tu r philosopho obstare (f. 125v). 501A 2 : A ttende pulcherrim am sim ilitudinem (f. I32r).
D 1: S im ilitudo (f. I25v). 502E 2 : Q ualis princeps debet esse (f. I33v).
D 4: M alu m bono co n tin u o ad u ersu m (f. 125v). 503B 5: U rbis custodes philosophos esse oportet (f. 134r).
E 1: Q ue n atu re pessim e [uel] efficiantur (f. 125v). C 2: Q u a re rari philosophi re p e ria n tu r (f. I34r).
E 3: D ebilem n a tu ra m n eque ad bonum conferre neque ad D 2: P roprie de im patientibus ad disciplinas (f. 134r).
m alum (f. I25v). E 1: E xam inatio p rincipum (f. 134r).
492B 5: Sim ile p o n itu r a Seneca de ludis publicis (f. 126r). 504C 3: A ttende, iners discipule! (f. 134r).
C 4: A ttende: publicos m ores u irtu ti esse contrarios (f. 126r). 505A 2 : [r\ tou ocya0ou tSea peytaTOv pd07]fxa]: Boni ideam m axim am
E 5: V etus p ro u erb iu m (f. 126v). esse disciplinam (f. 135r).
493A 6 : Q u e so phistarum precep ta sint (f. 126v). B 5: [’AXXoc [xrjv xai xoSe ye oia9a, ott t oi<; pev tcoXXou; r;8 ovri Soxei
A 9: Sophistica sapientia. Elegans com paratio m agne belue ad
eivat to aya96v, tou; 8 e xo(X([>OTepon; cppovT)at<j: A tqui scis, in-
sophistarum d o ctrin am (f. 126v).
q u am , plurim is uoluptatem bo n u m ap p arere, elegan-
C 10: P redicatores etatis nostre (f. I27r).
tioribus uero sapientiam uideri]: A liquibus uoluptatem ,
D 6 : Iouis consilium (f. 127r).
elegantioribus sapientiam uideri b onum (f. 135v).
494B 5: P roprie de ciuibus illustribus in om ni preclara urbe (f. C 1 : Facete dictum (f. 135v).
I27v). C :
6 Lege, Epicure! (f. 135v).
495A 4: C u r rari philosophi o ria n tu r (f. I28r). 506A 4: B onum im prim is noscere oportet (f. 136r).
D 7: Facete (f. 128v). C 6 : Idiota fratercule, legito! (f. 136r).
E 4: P erp ro p ria sim ilitudo de fabro ferrario (f. 128v). 507B 5: R effert om nia bona ad u n u m b o n u m solum (f. 137r).
496A 5: Viles hom ines viles cogitationes gignere (f. 128v). B 9: D e ideis nota (f. 137r).
A 11: M in im am digne p h ilo so p h an tiu m esse p artem (f. I28v). C 1 : E legantem in g red itu r disputationem (f. 137r).
C 3: De diuino signo Socratis de quo A puleius: lege m irabile (f. 508A 4: Sol ex diis celestibus (f. I37v).
129r). B 12: [N unc igitur, in q u am , boni n atu m m e p u ta dicere]: Sol
C 5: Q u am pauci b eatam u ita m gustent et intelligant (f. 129r).
boni natus. [quern sibi p ro p o rtio n atu m b onum idem
E 2: N ota. Iu stu m u iru m m ori cum bona spe (f. 129r). (/cdyaGov) procreauit]: D e Deo lo q u itu r (f. 137v).
497B 1 : N ullam ex presen tib u s d ig n am philosopho rem publicam D 4: D e anim a nota (f. 138r).
(f. 129v). E 1: C ed an t om nes philosophi huic diuine celestique sententie!
B 3: S im ilitudo p eregrini sem inis (f. I29v). (f. 138r).
C 1 : D iu in u m ingenium philosophi nota (f. 129v). 509A 6 : Q u i D eum cupis intelligere, hie attendito! (f. 138r).
- ) || ’ ...1------
566 P A R T II TE X T S 567

B 9: M aius quid essentia D eum esse (f. 138v). B 9: G eom etriam item m entem ad su periora conuertere
D 6: A ttende hanc distinctionem diligenter (f. 138v). (f. 15 lr).
510B 2: P rim a intelligibilis pars (f. 139r). D 6 : N ota astronom iam anim e in stru m en tu m perp u rg are (L
C 2: H ec particula posita est a C icero n e in Tusculanis, et astute 151v).
conuersa libro quin to (f. 139r). 528A 9: A ttende! T ertiu m (f. 151v).
529A 9: Q u am facete! G lauconem Socrates irridet (f. 152v).
[L iber septim us D 1 : Lege: ueram astronom iam (f. 152v).
514 A 1 M irabilem vm aginem d iu in i atten d e Platonis (f. 142r). D 7: Insignis com paratio (f. 153r).
515B 7 Echo: uox repercussa in locis cauernosis (f. 142v). E 1 : D edalus: illustris artifex (f. 153r).
E 6 Poetica et m irabilis in uentio (f. 143r). 530A 4: Celi en n arran t gloriam Dei et opera m an u u m eius anun-
516C 1 Sol om nium causa que c e rn u n tu r (f. 143r). tiant firm am entum (f. 153r).
D 4 H om erus de seruo ascriptitio. V erb a Achillis (f. 143v). D 8 De Pitagoreis nota (f. 153v).
517 B 6 Solus Deus nouit u eritatem (L 144r). 531B 7 M irabiles musici et etatis nostre similes (f. 154r).
C 3 De Deo lo q u itu r qui solem et o m nia creauit (f. 144r). D 7 Legis prohem ium (f. I54v).
518A 5 A ttende diligenter (f. 144v). 532A 1 Lex dialetice (f. 154v).
B 7 [ t t j v tratBeiav]: A ttende de eru d itio ne (f. 144v). C 3 Laus dialetice scientie (f. 154v).
D 1 [TayaSov]: S u m m u m b o n u m D eu m cognoscere (f. 144v). D 2 L upum auribus teneo (f. 155r).
E 2 Sapere diu in u m est (f. 145r). 533A 4 A ttende difficultatem intelligendi (f. I55r).
519A 9 A pueritia m ores esse percipiendos (1. 145r). B 1 Q u id agit sola dialetica nota diligenter (1. 155r).
521B 4 R iuales in p rincipatu non con u en ire (f. 146v). C 7 Q u am utilis dialetica (f. 155v).
C 2 U t de T heseo et H ercule d icitu r (f. 147r). E 7 [£Tticrcrip.7]v: scientiam ]: Scientia uel intellectus (f. 155v).
C 7 [xou o v t o $ ouaav ercavoSov, r)v 8 r) cptXoacxpiav aXr]9fi cpTjaopev 534B 8 Q uis uerus dialeticus, aut m inim e (1. 156r).
eivat: ad uerum illius entis red itu m quern philosophiam D 8 Lex (f. 156r).
solemus uocitare]: P hilosophia reditus ad D eum ; nota! (f. E 2 [wa7tep Bptyxoi;]: D ialetica veluti solarium super omnes
147r). disciplinas (f. 156v).
E 3 Q uid agit gim nastica (f. 147r). 535A 9: Q ue in rege co nueniant (f. 156v).
522A 3 Q uid m usica (f. 147r). D 1 : N ota, princeps! [cum signo loci potioris usque ad 535E 5] (f.
B 4 Artes reliquas uiles ac m echanicas (f. 147v). 157r).
C 5 [H oc uile, inquam : u n u m , duo, tria dignoscere]: Principio E 4 De sue p roprium [sic ] (f. 157r).
positum in T h im eo (f. 147v). 539B 1 Proprio de pueris dialetice studentibus (f. 159v).
523B 9 Elegantissim am et utilem lege inquisitionem ! (f. 148r). B 6 Q u am proprie! (f. 159v).
525A 9 T o ta arith m etrica circa u n u m u e rsatu r (f. 149v). E 2 D istinguit annos im partiendos gim nasiis et studiis (f. 160r).
C 5 Laus arithm etrice (f. 149v). 540A 4 Principem q u in q u ag en ariu m esse oportere (1. 160r).
D 9 Vaf’ros et acutos. N ota (1. 150r). A 9 N ota principem exem plum adeo capere in om nibus (f.
526A 6 Responsio consueta ig n o ran tiu m (f. 150r). 160r).
B 5 A rithm etricos ad om nes disciplinas acutiores uideri (f. B 6 B eatorum insule (f. 160v).
I50r). C 5 [toci; apxouaa?: principissas]: F em inas ad principatum pro-
D 1 Q u a n tu m geom etria in bello utilis sit (f. 150v). m ouendas (f. 160v).
E 2 [blue enim o m nia spectare dicim us qu ecu n q u e an im am ad
cum locum flectere com pellunt, in quo entis beatissim um [L iber octauus]
inesse cernitur): Ad D eum u eru m (L 150v). 543A 4: Reges qui in philosophia et bello optim i (f. 163r).
52 7 B 7 G eom etriam acl Dei cognitionem spectare (f. 151r). B 7: A ttende de com m unione Socratis (1. 163r).
568 P A R T II
TE XTS 569

544A 3: Q u a tu o r species ciuilitatu m de quibus in fine libri quarti ciues sufficienter in urbe posse acquirere, sed alterum ex
loqui ceperat (f. 163v). his negligere oportere]: A urea sententia (f. 171v).
C 1 : T im ocratica: honorabilis potestas. O ligarchica: paucorum D 7: N ota: fuscos aculeatos (f. 171 v).
prin cip atu s. D em ocratica: popularis potestas. T y ran n is E 5: U su ram dicit (f. 171v).
(f. 163v). 556A 6 : S ecunda lex (f. 171v).
E 7: A ristocratia: o p tim a potestas que septem superioribus con- 557A 2: Q uom odo dem ocratica fit (f. 172v).
tin e tu r libris (f. 164r). B 4: L ibertas non b ona (f. 172v).
545D 1 : [Et hoc sim plex atq u e u e ru m , om nem scilicet rem publicam D 4: Iro n ia (f. 172v).
ex eo qui p rin cip atu m h ab eat im m utari]: Lege, princeps! E 2 : A ttende licentiam dem ocratice ciuilitatis (f. 173r ) .
(f. 164v). 558A 9: [coairep ^poo?]: Facete, semidei in m orem (f. 173r).
546A 1 : Difficilis explicatio de po ten tia geom etrici n u m eri D 11 Q ue necessarie sint uoluptates (f. I73v).
(f. 164v). 559A 3: Q ue non necessarie (fi I73v).
C 6: A ttende p ro p rietatem (f. 165r). B 8: C o n tra opinionem Senece qui in pane et aq u a uitam
547D 4: A ristocrat < ic > e partes persim iles (f. 166r). beatam ponit (f. 174r).
E 1: P ro p rie partes tim ocratice (f. 166r). D 7: O rtu s uiri dem ocratici (f. 174r).
548A 5: P artes oligarchice similes (f. 166r). 561B 7: V ita D ionisii Iunioris (f. 175v).
E 4: M ores uiri tim ocratici (f. 166v). C 6 : Inconstantissim am attende uitam (f. 175v).
549B 6 : R atio m usica p erm ix ta (f. I67r). 562B 3: B onum ex quo oligarchica fit (f. 176r).
C 2: O rtu s uiri tim ocratici (f. 167r). B 12 M ala libertas (f. 176r).
C 8: P roprie de querellis m u lieru m (f. 167r). C 8 : O p tim a sim ilitudo (f. 176v).
550D 9: M u tatio tim ocratice ad oligarchicam (f. 168r). 563A 3: A ttende (f. 176v).
E 1: M ala consuetudo (f. 168r). B 4: S um m a libertatis plebee (f. 176v).
551A 1: H inc C icero: honos alit artes (f. 168r). D 1: Facetissim e (f. 177r ) .
A 7: M os etatis nostre (f. 168r). E 3: Iro n ia (f. 177r ) .
C 3: V era com paratio (f. 168v). 564C 1 : G enus fucorum u itan d u m (f. 177v).
552A 7: C o n su etu d o nostre u rbis et m u ltaru m (f. 169r). C 9: T rip lex dem ocraticorum genus (f. 177v).
C 2: P ro p riam attende sim ilitudinem de fuscis (f. 169r). D 7: G enus ceteris potentius (f. 178r).
D 3: C u ria ro m an a (f. 169v). E 6 : M oderatiores ditiores fieri (f. 178r).
553A 9: O rtu s uiri oligarchici (f. 170r). E 13 D ites herba fucorum (f. 178r).
B 1: E xitus tim o cratico ru m (f. 170r). 565A 1: Populus tertium genus (f. 178r).
C 2: A u aru s (f. 170r). A 6 : Q uestio om nium fucorum circa mel (f. 178r).
D 1: A u ari m ores (f. 170r). B 5: O ligarchici ex necessitate (f. 178v).
554A 10: Scaber: eleganter positum de au aro (f. 170v). D 1 : O rtu s tyranni ex tutore (f. 178v).
B 5: A u aru s cecus (f. 170v). D 6: F abula Iouis Licei (f. 178v).
C 7: Q u a lite r ypocrita d ig n o scitu r (f. 170v). D 9: T ran sm u tatio hom inis in lupum (f. 178v).
E 3: P erfide, sim ulator, et ypocrita, longe abes a u era uirtute! 566A 1: N a tu ra tyrannica (f. 178v).
(f. 171 r ) . B 5: Irrisio (f. 179r).
555C 1 : P rin cip iu m dem ocratice (f. 171v). B 10 C onsuetudo stulta populorum (f. 179r).
C 7: [Ouxouv BfjXov t]8 t] xouxo iv TcoXei, oxi 7tXouxov xtpav xcd C 4: O racu lu m C resi regis (f. 179r).
aa)9 poauvr)v a p a ixavtii; xxdaGai. ev xou; 7CoX(xaii; aBuvaxov, D 8: Sim ulationes attende tyrannicas (f. 179v).
aXX’ dvotyxT] rj xou exepou dcpeXeiv rj xou ixipov: Ad hoc, 567A 7: T ira n n u s bella p erpetua m editatur (f. 179v).
in q u am , clarum te m p e ra n tia m atque diuitias n equaquam B 8: M ores lege tyrannicos (f. 179v).
570 P A R T II TE X T S 571

c 4: Facetissim e (f. 180r). D 3: Elegantissim am et p ropriam nota sim ilitudinem (f. I 8 8 v).
D 1: Irrisio (f. 180r). 579B 9: Sim ilia a X en o p h o n te scripta in libro De tyranno (f. 189r).
D 12 ‘F ucos’ lepidissim e d ictum ({'. I80r). D 9: C elestem attende sententiam (f. 189v).
E 8 : Iron ice (f. I80r). 580A 9: Lege sententiam diffinitiuam totius questionis que in
568A 4: M alorum am icitia (f. 180v). presenti opere tra c ta tu r (f. 189v).
A 9: T rag ed iam et E uripidem irrid et (f. I80v). B 9: De seipso sub enigm ate lo q uitur Plato, nam et ipse est
B 5: C o n tra tragicos poetas (f. 180v). A ristonis filius (f. 190r).
D 2; P ropriam attende sim ilitudinem (f. 180v). D 7: D em onstratio triplicis anim e (f. 190r).
D 5: Exercitus ty ran n o ru m (f. 180v). D 11 Pars appetibilis (f. I90r).
E 9; Et id clarum. Elegans descriptio tyrannice n atu re per E 5: V oluptates ex pecuniis oriri (f. 190v).
sim ilitudines q u asdam filii ad parentes proprios (f. 181 r ) . 581A 9: Pars irascibilis (f. 190v).
569 B 1 : Beluam attende (f. 181 r ) . B 5: P ars rationabilis (f. I90v).
B 6 : Patricida tv ran n u s (f. 181 r). B 12 R atio sapientiam im itatu r (f. 190v).
C 3: T riplex genus h om inum (f. 190v).
[Liber nonus] C 6 : T riplex genus uoluptatis (f. 190v).
5710 5: Q u e sint illegales cupidines (f. 183v). C 8: C on su etu d o com unis (f. 190v).
C 3: A ttende que C icero tran stu lit in libris De diuinatione (f. E 1 : V oluptas philosophi (f. 191 r).
183v). 582A 1: Elegans inquisitio (f. 19lr).
5 72 A 7: De u eritate s o < m > p n io r u m (f. 184r). A 4: Q uom odo recte iudicam us (f. 191 r).
B 10 D em ocraticus u ir (1. 184r). C 7: Solus philosophus nouit u eritatem (f. I91v).
E 4: A ttende tvrannos atq u e m agos (f. I84v). D 7: In stru m en tu m iudicandi (f. 19 lv).
5 73 A 1: F ucum tvrannico co m p arat am ori (f. I84v). E 7: O p tim a conclusio (f. I91v).
C 9: T ira n n ic a n a tu ra m elancolica et am ans (f. 185r). 583A 2 : V oluptas scientie dulcissim a (f. 191v).
E 5: Persim ilis com paratio (f. 185r). A 8: Secunda uoluptas bellicosa (f. 192r).
574B 7: Faceta sim ilitudo (f. 185v). A 10 V oluptas au ari u ltim a (f. I92r).
D 1: M ores lege tyrannicos (f. 185v). B 5: [... ut a quodam sapientissim orum u iro ru m audisse
D 9: De im m an itate anim e uigilantis ut in som niis ante faciebat m em ini]: C redo < q u o d > a P itag o ra uel de seipso lo­
(f. 186r). q u itu r in enigm ate (f. I92r).
575B 4: M in im a ty ra n n o ru m m ala (f. 186r). C 3: P u lch errim a inquisitio de uoluptate et dolore (f. 192r).
E 2; P erp ro p ria consuetudo ty ra n n o ru m cum do m in ari ceperint C 7: C o n tra Epicuri opinionem . N ota (f. I92r).
({'. 186v). 584B 3: Q u am eleganter opinio co n futatur Epicuri! (f. 192v).
576A 4: T ira n n ic a n a tu ra nulli arnica in s e < r > u i t u t e elegit sem per D 6 : O p tim a sim ilitudo (f. 193r).
(f. 186v). E 7: A ttende qui ignoras veritatem (f. I93r).
D 4: Q u e op tim a et que d e te rrim a urbs (f. 187r). 585D 1 : V erissim a probatio (f. 194r).
E 3: T y ra n n id i obnoxia nulla d eterio r ciuitas (f. 187v). D 5: C o rp u s an im a deterius (f. 194r).
577A 5: Elegans figuratio (f. 187v). 586A 1 : Lege qui in corpore om nia b o n a constituis (f. 194r).
C 9: C on d itio urbis infelicis et ty ran n id i subjecte (f. 187v). A 7: H ie Salustius: “ ueluti pecora que n a tu ra p ro n a atque obe-
D 1: Sim ilitudo urbis ad an im am ty ran n i illi presidentem (f. dientia u en tri finxit” (f. 194r).
188r). E 3: Q u o d optim um fam iliarissim um est (f. I94v).
5 78 A 1 : A nim a tyrannis insati < a > bilis et egena (f. 188r). 587B 1 : A m ores et tyrannice voluptates (f. 195r).
B 11 Q uis m iserior ty ran n u s (f. 188v). B 14 U n a u era uoluptas, due nothe (f. 195r).
C 6 : A ttende diligenter (f. 188v).
572 P A R T II TE X T S 573

D 6 :
Idolum p lan u m atten d e (f. 195v). A 6 : T ales M ilesius. A nacharsis Scitha (f. 203r).
D : D istan tia ty ran n i a uero rege (f. 195v).
12 B 2 ; P itagoras illustris philosophus (f. 203r).
588B 6: C onclusio totius q u estionis proposite a T rasim ach o in B 6 : C reophilus H o m eri fam iliaris (f. 203r).
prim o libro (f. I9 6 r). C 6: P itagoras A bderites. Prodicus C hius (f. 203r).
C 3: C h im era. Scilla. C e rb e ru s (f. 196r). D 6 : H esiodus poeta (f. 203v).
C 7: A d m iran d am an im e im ag in em intellige (f. 196r). 601D 1: T re s esse artes de quocum que (f. 204r).
E 3: A daptatio p u lc h e rrim a (f. 196r). 602A 8: Lege, im itator! (f. 204v).
589B 8: A urea sen ten tia (f. 196v). B 8: Q uod im itatio iocus sit (f. 204v).
C 7: Irrisio (f. 196v). C 12 H eb etu d o uisus (f. 205r).
E 5: Lege, auare! (f. 197r). D 3: M iracu lo ru m operatio per fraudem (f. 205r).
590A 1: H eriphile u x o r A m p h iarai (f. 197r). 603C 5: De im m itatione (sic) poetica (f. 205v).
A 9: [rj auGdSeioc xai SuaxoXta]: C o n tu m a c ia et d i < r i > t a s (f. D 2: A ttende ad m iran d as rationes (f. 205v).
197r). E 7: C o n tra opinionem Stoicorum (f. 206r).
591B 1: A ttende: p u n itio n em p eccato ru m prodesse plu rim u m (f. 604A 10 C elestem lege doctrinam de p atien tia (f. 206r).
197v). B 6: Pars rationabilis (f. 206r).
G 1: Lege salutiferam d octrinam ! (f. I98r). C 5: H inc T eren tiu s in Adelphis (f. 206v)
D 4: Q uis uerus m usicus (f. 198r). E 1: M o d eratu s mos non recipit im itationem (f. 206v).
592B 2: H inc P etrus C a n d id u s sum psit titulum h o ru m librorum De 605A 8: P oeta pictori persim ilis (f. 206v).
celesti politia (f. 198v). B 5: Iu sta causa q ua poete urbe expellantur (f. 207r).
607B 5: Lege an tiq u am contentionem in ter poesim et philosophiam
[L iber decim us] (f. 208r).
595A 5: Poesis im itatiu a u ita n d a (f. 199r). C 9: Socrates que fatetu r de poesi nota. Nihil dulcius iocundius
B 3: C o rru p tio est poesis (f. 199r). et elegantius me legisse m em ini. P[etri] C an d id i (f. 208v).
B 10: H o m eru s princeps trag ico ru m o p tim o ru m (f. 200r). D 6: Irrisio co n tra nugatores (f. 208v).
596A 5: In g re d itu r d isp u tatio n em (f. 200r). 608B 4: Sanctissim am lege sententiam (f. 209r).
E 5: Faceta sim ilitudo de speculo ad pictorem (f. 200v). C 5: N ota tem poris b reu itatem (f. 209r).
597A 5: N em inem “ q uod e s t” perfecte posse facere (f. 2 0 1 r). D 3: A nim am p u tat im m ortalem q u am q u am d u b itat au d ito r (f.
B 5: T re s lecti: uide d ilig en ter (f. 201r). 209r).
C 1: [ '0 [xev 8 e 0eo<;, z(xt oux £(3ouXexo, z'Cxz xic; avocyx7] £7rfjv pr) 610E 10 C onclusio im m ortalitatis (f. 21 lr).
xXeov rj ptav ev xf) <pua£i dc7tepydaaa 0 ai auxov xXtvr]v: D eus ita- 611A 5: L audabilis opinio et uerissim ilis (sic) (f. 21 lr).
que, siue nolit, siue necessitas q u ed am p u te tu r affuisse, B 5: A ttende! (f. 21 lr).
non am plius q u am u n u m in n a tu ra lectum d icetur con- C 3: C elestis sententia et Platone digna (f. 21 lv).
fecisse]: A ttende de D ei u o lu n ta te uel necessitate (f. 2 0 lr). E 1: Ad philosophiam inspiciendum (f. 21 lv).
D 7 N a tu ra creau it o m n ia (f. 2 0 lv ). 612B 5: [xr)v ’'AiSoi; xuvfjv]: G alea inferna (f. 2 1 2 r).
E 6 T rag ed u s pictori sim ilis (f. 2 0 lv). 613A 4: A udi d iu in u m P latonem angelica uerb a referentem ! (f.
599B 9 A ttende dilig en ter (f. 202v). 2 1 2 v).
C 4 Esculapius (f. 202v). B 10 C u rso ru m p ro p ria sim ilitudo (f. 2 1 2 v).
D 2 H o m eru m irrid et (f. 202v). C 4: Q u i inceperit et non p erseu erau erit saluus non erit (f.
D 7 L icurgus legis lato r (f. 203r). 2 1 2 v)
E 2 C a ru n d a s Italiam et Siciliam legibus stabiliuit (f. 203r). D 5: Finis y p ocritarum (f. 213r).
E 3 Solon (f. 203r). 614A 5: De uita beata (f. 213r).
600A 4 O p e ra sapientis (f. 203r). B 2: A lchinus n u g ato r (f. 213v).
574 P A R T II TEXTS 575

B 3 F abula H eris A rm enii posita a V alerio M axim o in capitulo 329E 7 Themistocles M S 380B 6 obscruandum M S 382C 6 Futum .\IS 401A 1 ptc-
de m iraculis (f. 2 l3 v ). turam M S 402D 1 Hec] Nec M S exciteret ric M S 407E 3 polliticus M S 409B 4
iudicem ex iuuenem corr. manus eadem 411C 4 Quid ... asque ptc) ... iuuet M S 423A
C 5 Iustos ad dex teram . Iniustos ad sinistram (f. 213v). 7 collatur M S, sed coletur eo in loco praebel versio 458D 8 Socratem post corr. 462D 6 qui
615A 3 Iter a n n o ru m mille (f. 214r). M S 479C 1 puniee M S 516C 1 ccrn u n tu r scnpsi: cernitur M S; cernebantur leg.in ver-
A 9 H u m a n a m uitam cen tu m annis term in ari (f. 214r). sione 573C 9 melan- corr. mantis coaeva ex melen- 588C 3 Cerbarus M S, sed Cerberi leg.
in versione 620D 8 custode M S
B 5 Lege decupla re m u n e ra tio n em et penam (f. 214r).
C 2 H inc m u lta V irgilius noster in sexto Eneidos sue transtulit 328D 7 Cicero, Sen. 3.7 sqq. 329B 7 ibid., 3.8 331A 7 Pindarus, frag. 214 (ed.
(f. 2 14r). Schroeder) 357A 1 Cicero, Rep. 3.17.27, apud Lactantium, Inst. Div. 5.12.5-7 359D
l Cicero, Off. 3.38.78 361A 4 Cicero Rep. 3.17.27, apud Lactantium ut supra 395D
C 6 M ag n u s A rdieus ty ra n n u s (f. 214r). 6 e.g. Homerus II. 24.604 397A 1 Seneca sen., Contr. 1, pr. 1; Plinius iun. Ep. 4.7;
E 4 M iru m : dem ones describit iste philosophus m ore C hris- Quintilianus Inst. 12.1.1, etc. 400D 6 Seneca Ep. XL 440C 7: Plutarchus, Vita
Catonis, cap. 52 453D 10 Herodotus 1.23; Scholia plalomca, ed. Greene, p. 227458B
tian o ru m . V erb a philosophi E uangelicis conform ia! (f.
9 Aristoteles. Pol. 2.4.4, 1262b 468D 1 Homerus II. 7.321-322 468E 8 Hesiodus, Op.
214v). et Dies 121 sqq. 473C 11 Boethius, Cons. phil. 1.4.11 479C 1 Scholia plalomca, ed.
616B 1 N ota o b seruationem d ieru m septem . Q u a rta m attende Greene, p. 235 488C 4 ibid., p. 238 492B 5 Seneca, Ep. V II.2 sqq. 496C 3
diem (214v). Apuleius, De daemone Socratis, passim 510C 2 Cicero, I use. 5.7.18 516D 4 Homerus,
Od. X I.489 522C 5 Plato, Ti. 17A 1 530A 4 Ps. 19:1 551A 1 Cicero, Tusc.
C 4 Fusus: dee necessitatis (f. 215r). 1.2.4 571C 3 Cicero Diu. 1.60 586A 7 Sallust Cat., cap. 1 590A 1 Scholia plalomca,
C 7 [mpovSuXov]: Fondillum quern nos uertigium dicim us (f. ed. Greene, p. 270 604C 5 Terentius, Ad. IV .7.21 613C 4 Mt. 10:22; cl. Mt. 13:2
215r).
D 6 De speris celi lo q u itu r (f. 2 l5 r).
E 2 De m agn itu d in e p la n e ta ru m (f. 215r).
E 5 O rd o p lan etaru m a spera superiori inferius descendendo, 52. Sedecim inedita ex tribus Petri C an d id i ep istu laru m syllogis ad uer-
nisi quod P lato M e rc u riu m et V enerem su p ra Solem ponit sionem suam Platonis Republicae pertin en tia. Ad caput cuiusuis epistulae
(f. 2 l5 r). uncos inter q u adratos nu m eru m citaui qui ad ordinem refert totius
E 8 De m oribus p la n e ta ru m (f. 215v). epistolarii a V ictore Z A C C A R IA (1952) institu tu m .
617A 1 H inc C icero de celesti a rm o n ia (f. 215v).
C 1 Fata: dee necessitatis (f. 215v).
A. [Br 35] C odex Braidensis, M S A H X II, 16, f. 47r-v
D 6 O ra tio prophete ad an im as (f. 215v).
E 3 V irtu s libera (f. 216r). G erard u s episcopus L an d rian u s Petro C an d id o salutem .
618B 7 Lege diligenter, non u erb a solum sed sensus consequentes C u m n u p er earn partem libri De repubhea, suauissim e frater, quae Som-
(f. 2 l 6 r). mum Scipionis appellatur perlegerem — nam ea forte in m anus postquam
619A 5- N ota: m edium u ite sem per eligendum (f. 216v). a te discessi inciderat— sum m a profecto me cupido incessit ut libros
B 7: A ttende, lector, hanc p artem m istice esse positam et aliter Platonis De repubiica conscriptos uiserem . Id q u o q u e desiderium m eum
a Platone intelligi q u am ad litteram legatur (f. 216v). auxit, quod m em ineram illos opera et studio sanctissim i et colendissimi
C 1 T ira n n id e m lib en ter appeti (f. 217r). patris tui ex G raecis litteris in nostras esse c o n u e rso s.** P erg ratu m igitur
C 4 S tu lto ru m consuetudo (f. 2 l7 r). m ihi feceris, si per hunc n u n tiu m qui tibi has red d it, illos m ihi m ittas.
D 7 Q u is felix (f. 217r). Nec hoc desiderium m eum , quod certe uehem ens est, longius trahi patia-
620A 3 Electio anim e O rp h ei (f. 217r ) . ris atq u e, u t hoc facias, m i C an d id e, m axim e te ex anim o rogatum
C 3 A ttende d iligenter sortem U lixis, nam m istica ista a uelim . V ale, [infra annos 1427/28]**
philosopho p o n u n tu r diligenti ratione (f. 217v).
D 8: D em onem u n icu iq u e custodi dari (f. 217v).
62 IB 1 : R editus a n im aru m ad n oua co rp o ra (f. 2 l8 r). 7 ex) et M S
C 3; A ngelica sententia et Socrate ac P latone digna conclusio
* in marg. scr. libr.: Pnma traductio imperfecta ** vid. ZACCARIA (1959), pag. 183,
(f. 218r). ad n. 1.
 576 P A R T II T E X TS 577

B. [Br 36] E xtat eodem in codice ac prior, f. 47v 15 fortasse nonnulli a Basiliensi u rbe ab archiepiscopo nostro, cui iam p ri­
dem hanc cu ram iniunxi, u eru m om nium tran sm itten d o ru m tuum dein-
Petrus C an d id u s G erard o episcopo L audensi salutem . ceps erit onus, quod tibi decus potius fu tu ru m arb itro r. H aec autem erit
U t desiderio tuo satisfaciam , reueren d issim e pater, Platonis libros tan- su m m a petitionis m eae: p rim u m ut hos diligenter legas— nihil te profecto
topere a te requisitos libentissim e tran sm itto . Q uos equidem m irum in fatebere legisse lu cu len tiu s— turn m anu egregia conscriptos et em endatos
m odum ut obserues et custodias te oro, cum nulla alia apud me his excep- 20 m ittes C loucestrensi principi, quern litteris tuis certu m reddes me reli­
tis extent exem plaria, q uibus in cu ria aliqua am issis et m em oria genitoris quos m ag n a cu ra diligentiaque conscribere, ut celsitudo sua p ar im m or-
quopdam mei et philosophi illius desiderio tabescerem . M inim e tam en talitati ac fam ae suae opus habeat. Hos autem nos misisse quasi degusta-
ingenio tuo satisfacturam lib ro ru m ipsorum lectionem satis arb itro r, non tionem q u a n d a m nostro ru m studiorum , ut quae deinceps secutura sint
quod ea dicendi suauitas et ingenii elegantia Platoni d efuerint, quae intelligat sciatque u b erio ra adhuc et elegantiora superesse. Est enim opus
Ciceroni nostro m u lto ru m testim onio a ttrib u tae sunt, sed quia eadem 25 decern distinctum libris, dignum lucubratione m agna atque studio.
uertendi potentia L atinis litteris esse non potest, ut G raeco ru m eloquen- D em u m cum om nes ad o p tatu m principem uenisse sensero et me ab in-
tiam facile im itetu r, ut nec G ra e c a ru m ipsarum sim iliter in transferendis sidiis u ia ru m ac fortunae tu tu m fore, uniuersos in u n u m redactos et
nostris uim esse intelligo. N eq u aq u am ig itu r T ulliano Scipioni Platoni- m an u p ro p ria transcriptos ad eundem per te m ittam , quod secundum
cum P am philium resp o n su ru m arb itro r. C eteru m p ru d en tiam et hum a- laboris et am oris nostri pignus prae se ferat. H aec igitur litteris tuis
nitatem tuam satis puto his pensitatis rectissim e om nia lecturam et excu- 30 reserato illi principi cui me ita com m endes uelim , ut intelligat me nihil
satu ram fore.
in u ita habere carius aut iucundius quam ut b enem eritae u irtuti suae
V ale. Ex M ediolano [in tra annos 1427/1428] fam am p raestare possim sem piternam .
V ale, R olande dulcissim e, et rescribe non q u a n tu m libet, sed quan tu m
exigit noster am or. [C irca initium anni 1439*]
10 potentia post corr.\ sententia man. prim.

C . [R 113] Q u a e extat tribus in codicibus, scil.: 6 Cuius 5] Eius R V 12 Hoc SF] Hunc R 13 ulli SF] illi R 23 quae om. S 26-27 in-
cidiis F 31 quam /?>S] quoniam F uirtute 5 33 licet 5
R — R iccard ian o 827, ff. 60v-61r
* uid. SAM M UT, p. 34.
S — H ispalensi (apud Bibl. C o lu m b in am ) 7-4-20, foliis non
n u m eratis
V — V allisoletano (ap u d Bibl. Sanctae C rucis) N r. 325, f. 3 9 v D. [R 166] E pistulam ex parte (linn. 1-26) cu rau it Z A C C A R IA (1967),
P etrus C an d id u s R olando T alen ti salutem . pagg. 528-529 ex codice R iccardiano; integram autem nunc praebeo
R ecentibus litteris tuis h ilaratu s sum , R o lan d e iucundissim e, quas Dei testibus eisdem qu am antea adhibitis, scilicet:
n utu ad me transm issas uideo. Q u ip p e qui ilia p arau eram ad te m itten- R , ff. 87v-88r
da, quae ipse ex a b u n d a n ti tu a caritate deposcis. L aus D eo qui talem S, foliis non n u m eratis
orbi, im m o aetati nostrae, dedit p rin cip em , cuius uirtu s ut saepe dixi V , f. 56r-v
ceteris esset ad u irtu te m ad h o rtatio . C u iu s quippe elegantissim ae et hu-
m anissim ae litterae redditae sunt m ihi tu a opera, cui profecto ingentes A lfonsus B urgensis episcopus Petro C an d id o salutem .
gratias referrem , nisi sincerus in ter nos a m o r et inconcussa iam pridem L ib en ter desiderio tuo obsequens, illi reuerendissim o patri M ediola-
fides prohiberet. nensi archiepiscopo, cui epistulam tuam iam p rid em direxeras, immo
Sed ut ad postulationem tuam u en iam , libros qu in q u e Politiae Platoni- tibi in eo rescripsissem , et in palaestram scolasticam ad quam me uocasti
cae iam absolui, reliquos q u a n ta cu ra et diligentia fieri poterit absoluam . 5 colluctaturus tecum fratern aliter descendissem , nisi illae tem pestates
Hoc igitur prius ad te m ittam , ut princeps ille caelestis tua opera ac in- tem p o ru m uestris ac m eis, ne inter ceteros me p raeteream , de m eritis
d u stria caelestem gustet Politiam , nec ulli in iu n g etu r iste labor praeter- peten tib u s euenissent, in quibus non h u m an itatis studia gratissim a, non
quam R olando m eo, qui hoc m u n ere im prim is dignus est. M itte n tu r m oralis philosophiae, nedum perutiles, sed iucundissim as ac suaues doc-
573 P A R T II TEXTS 579

trinas pertractari sub ocio gratissim o licet. Sed dissensiones in ecclesia R , ff. 88v-89
Dei iam ex parte exortas ac de die in diem ex orturas cernendo, uel ex- S, foliis non num eratis
tinguere aut ex tinguendas tem p tare, uel, ubi hoc fieri non ualet— illud V , ff. 56v-57r
tandem quod p rohiberi non po test— tarn cordis qu am corporis oculis la-
crim ari om nibus fere cu ra co n tin u a foret. O ro ergo te ne desidiae aut Alfonsus Burgensis episcopus Petro C andido salutem .
incuriae attrib u as si tard iu s qu am uclles, im m o q u am uellem , ad discep- Iocunditatem non p aru am prim ogenitae litterae tuae*, disertissim e
tationem illam tibi et m ihi laetissim am descendere me conspexeris. Ete- u ir, m ihi pridie attu leru n t, qui, non dicam uicissitudinem litterulis meis
nim quae an im u m liberum ac iu cu n d u m calam um p etu n t, non utiliter rependere uoluisti, sed te m ihi offeras, me ad am icitiam gratissim am
inter cum ulos an x ietatu m ac tu rb a tio n u m aceruos solent expleri, sed post euocasti; qu am utique grandissim am tui ipsius oblationem , ut decens est,
nubila solis splendorem a sole iusticiae ru tila tu ru m firm issim e praestola- m agni feci gaudentique suscipiens anim o, cum aliud non ualeam repen­
m ur, quo lucente haec et alia iucundae disputationis exercitia, ut spero, dere, me tibi libentissim o corde nedum offero, sed et affero, dixerim .
locym o p p o rtu n u m reperient. qu aten u s deinceps hinc inde ut iuristae uolunt, ultro citroque obligatione
Sed, forsan non longe ab re, dices, ‘Q u id haec scribis?’ N onne sufficit contracta, cum inter nos uicissitudo am icabilium o p eru m , ut spero, in-
mihi illius dignissim i patris quern nom inasti testim onium clarissim um tercesserit, iam non quisque nostrum tribuere censeatur, sed soluere.
qui iisdem in rebus, quibus uersaris, u ersatu r, cuius continuis litteris de H u iu s autem am icitiae nostrae non p aru u la nec contem nenda ilia cir-
huiuscem odi co n tu rb atio n ib u s uestris ab u n d e certificor? F ateor tibi: haec cu m stan tia est quod prius anim i in m u tu u m am orem , quam oculi in
om nia p raeterm ittere potuissem , sed praem ittere uolui ut sub hac occa- m u tu u m conspectum uen eru n t. N am et si am icitiarum om nium nom en.
sione presentibus inceptis litterulis aliud quod optabam adicerem . Sensi ut cum uulgo loquar, iucundum et honestissim um sit, ilia tam en, ni
em m per litteras tuas eidem patri dircctas te q u in tu m librum ex Politia fallor, am icitia honestiorem originem habet in q ua notitia studiorum
Platonis e G raeco in L atin u m n o u iter traduxisse, quod si q u in tu s est, uisionem personarum praecessit, cum aliae affectiones quae sub
q u attu o r ut p raecedant oportet. O ro ergo te ut in prim itias com m unica- am icitiae im agine saepe uelantur, n o n n u m q u am ad m om entaneas et has
tionum n o straru m aliquem ex eis trad u cas, uel si traduxisti, m ihi trans- quas utilitates uocant, astuta quadam sem ita ten d an t, quo fit ut a tem ­
m ittas. Nec eo anim o hoc petitum putes quasi nouam disputationis mate- poralis com m odi suspicione rarissim e segregentur. H o n estarum autem
riam inq u irere uelim , sed quia an im u s m eus quodam interno gaudio d o ctrin aru m participatio cum am ori m utuo caem enta, tradiderint, etiam
laetatur, cum ex antiquissim is scriptis G raecorum aliquid de nouo ad si tem poralia post incidenter accedant. A m icitia inde o rta nulla um bra-
nostram noticiam d ed u citu r. E tenim q u an to u etu stio ra sui origine sunt, tione fuscatur, nec uila superueniens suspicio, nisi adm odum uehem en-
tanto recentiora u id en tu r. th a e c , non etiam illu d t Accedit quod ab tissim a foret, honestum am icitiae ingressum o b ten eb rare ualeret.
adolescentia m ea illud idem , de quo tu etiam augeris, audisse sum Q u o rsu m haec? C um codulam , non epistolam scribere coepi, ad P lato­
m em or, opiniones a n tiq u o ru m cru d iu s qu am ipsi astru x erin t ab Aristo- nis ergo libros, q uorum titulos per litteras tuas reverendissim o patri Me-
tele interd u m recensitas fuisse, et an res sic se habeat, non parum diolanensi archiepiscopo designasti, me transfero. Et illi aut m ihi seu
gratan ter uiderem . V ale, mi am ice carissim e. u triq u e licentiam petendi concedis, ego licet om nes libenter acciperem ,
[circa fm em anni 1437*]3 ne tam en tibi exuberantes labores iniungam , ex illis sextum mihi delegi.
O ro ergo te ut ad mei instantiam ilium , cum otium suberit, traducas,
quo fiet ut cum u n u m m ihi, alios aliis direxeris, om nes in L atinam lin-
3 dixeras V 11 aut /?5] uel V 13 f’ere] uere S 16 calarium sic R 17 acerbos 5 19 guam d eu en ian t, contingetque forsan ceu cum n oua pom a aut recentes
lucente /?| lucem te S V 29 praecedat R 31 nonam V racem i in ipso frugum principio a d d u cu n tu r, ex m atu rio rib u s cum in-
uid. ZACCARIA (1959), p. 189: ZACCARIA (1967), p. 511: lapsus calami esse
cipim us edere, illis quae acerba putam us quodam cum supercilio neglec-
uidetur quod scripsit idem auctor ibidem, p. 529, scil. “ fine 1438” . tis, paulatim uero gustu incenso u n a post aliam u n am accepta totum
racem um assum im us, et qui prim o eligebam us iam nihilo refutato intra
E. [R 168] Epistolam ex parte (linn. 1-22) cu rau it Z A C C A R IA (1967), stom achum om nia ardenti palato decondim us. Q u o exem plo, si in hac
pag. 512, ex codice R iccardiano; integram autem nunc praebeo testibus re forte d u cem u r, cum iam qu in tu m luculentissim o sub stilo traduxeris,
eisdem qu am antea adhibitis, scilicet: nunc ego sextum peto, dignissim us uero presul praetatu s alium exposcet;
580 P A R T II
TE X TS 581

his etiam receptis alii uel nos alios petem us, Politia Platonis integra in
6 indulgere 5’F 8 seruauissime MSS.
m anus L atin o ru m d eueniet, quod et tibi ad honorem , nobis autem ad
laetitiam et consolationem accedet. P latonis autem excellentia ingeniique 7-9 Suetonius, Aug., cap. 66
acerrim um acum en, qu ae non im m erito laudas, ab antiquis saeculis
celeberrim a t'uere, adeo ut et id, quod tu tangis, iam audisse sum m em or
G. [R 170] Eisdem tribus in codicibus co n seru atu r, scilicet:
eqarn ipso A ugustino testante m ysteria T rin itatis aliq uantula ex parte
per Platonem fuisse descripta, ut ex eo ce rn atu r q u an tae claritatis illud R , ff. 89v-91r
ingenium erat, quod in su m m u m lum en o b tu tum dirigere potuit, et par- S, foliis non num eratis
ticulam aliquam , licet ten u em , ex his quae sequenti aeuo sub plenitudine V, ff. 57v-58r
gratiae per d iuinam lucem reuelata extitere posset conspicere. V ale, mi
Petrus C an d id u s Alfonso Burgensi episcopo salutem .
dilectissime f'rater, et M ichaelem Pizolpassum nostrum com m unem
Longissim a m ihi tecum superest dicendi facultas, pater hum anissim e,
am icum ex interioribus cordis saluta. [1438]
quam tem pori m alo accom m odare, ne repentina uoluntas ueritati aut
supersit aut desit. C um autem nuntius hie ad tuas curas accelerare
diceretur, tuam dignitatem meis expertem litteris esse nolui, ut haberet
4 otters Zaccana 20-21 umbratione .V] ab urnbratione R V, obumbratione Zaccana
21 suscatur S 23 caedularn RS, Zaccana 29 dixeris (’ 30 racemes sic R 31 cum 6] uel risum in iucundis rebus uel solatium in aduersis, si qu a mihi facultas
enijn R l' 33 unam .V] una R V 35 recondimus R V 36 cum] eum V 37 poscet S inest. V eniam itaque b reu iter ad ea quae m agis cupit tua dignitas et prius
41 quae| qui V 42 tu tangis] intangis sic S 46 aliquam R l ] aliam quam 5 quidem m eam uel inscitiam uel aliorum ignorantiam expedire m ens est.
* Retert ad Petri Candidi epist. R 167 scriptarn post mensem Februarium anno 1438, Dicis A ristotelem politiam rectam sub tribus generibus distinxisse,
quae iam edita est curante ZACCARIA (1959), pagg. 202-203. peruersam in totidem . C eteru m si Platoni m agistro suo uel ueritati
potius cedit, regnum ab aristocratica neq u aq u am sep arabitur, a qua
tim ocratica haud m u ltu m , sed cedit tam en. H aec Platonis uerb a sunt
quae litteraru m G raecaru m instructi perm ulti, ut putas, aetate nostra
F. [R 169] Eisdem tribus in codicibus conservatur, scilicet:
rite explicaturi sunt: oaoi ttoXixetcov zpoizoi, Ttevxe Be, xoaouxoi xat
R , f. 89v pev ovxo<; ov 7toXix£ta<; e!V) av xp07to<;, e7tovopaa0etr] Be av < x a t > Six?)
S, foliis non num eratis 9 Xeyyevopivou piv yap avBpo<; hot; ev xol<; apxouat Btacpepov-coi; [3aaiXeta av

V, f. 57r-v xXr]0eir], 7iXeiovoL>v Be aptaxoxpaxta. xouxo ev ei8o< <;> Xeyw. Politiarum, in ­

quit, modi quinque totidem et ammae sunt; unus quidem hie politiae modus ent
Petrus C an d id u s Alfonso Burgensi episcopo salutem .
bifanam nominatus. Existente quidem uno homine in principibus excellentissimo,
Q uae pollicitus sum d ig n itati tuae, clarissim e pater, felicissime
regnum appellabitur, in pluribus autem aristocratica, et hanc unam speciem esse
praestabo dum u iu am . N am , ut a sapientibus uiris trad itu m est, nihil
dico. V ides nunc regnum et aristocraticam idem esse, nisi quod hoc ab
turpius quam in am ore su p erari. A m o itaque te singulariter et enixe ob
uno, haec a pluribus regitur, nec in hac specie tim ocraticam contineri nec
m eritas u irtutes tuas, turn ob am o rem quern erga me indefessum osten-
inesse posse, cum ad m alam speciem fiat inclinatio, quod lucidissim o in
disti, qui ueteri pro u erb io nulli am ato solet indigere. In quo possum
octauo Politiae Platonis cernitur, cum tim ocratica ab aristocratica
gloriari iuxta O ctau ii principis m orem : au t non adm isisse am icitias me,
g eneretur, sed ad m alum iam procliuis. H aec P latoni non m inus quam
aut eas unice co n stan terq u e seruasse m e, etiam si eos, in quibus iudicium
A ristoteli credenda sunt. T im ocratica uero, oligarchica, dem ocratica,
m eum ab errau it, aliq u an d o ab am icitia defecisse cognouissem . H aec
tyrannis u n a ab alia g en eran tu r, et in eadem specie in clu d u n tu r
alia$ Sim onino G iglino viro optim o et doctissim o scripsisse m em ini,
peruersa.
quern licet ignotum tuae d ig n itati, lib en ter nom ino cum inter rarissim a
Addis L eo n ard u m aliter interp retatu m in quib u sd am ac mihi uidea-
am icorum testim onia hie unicus sit qui hoc nom ine insigniri m creatur.
tur, et per “ aristo cratica” “ optim orum ciuium p o te sta te m ” traduxisse.
V ocabula quae requiris in epistula sequenti cognosces. Nam a G rae-
Vellem L eonardum ea posuisse quae uidebat et n eq uaquam incerta
cis fontibus uerissim e a me tra d u c ta sunt in Latinam linguam . Vale.
perscripsisse. Anstos quippe apud G raecos “ b o n u s” , cratos “ p o ten s” in-
[1438]
terp retatu r. U bi igitur ciuis est m entio? T im ocratica etiam a “cen su ”
58 2 P A R T II TEXTS 583

dici non potest, nam timi “ h o n o r” est, cratos “ p o te n s” , nec ilia popularis impr. Bononiae ca. 1474/6 [Hain-Copinger 1742], sign. BV. si nullius gratia lasciuus, si
57 ibid., 1108B 1 = interpr. Aretini, edn. cit., sign. BL
sui lucri causa hoc jacit adulator
cst politia. C au e, p ater optim e, ne e rro r his subsit: dem ocratica est 60 ibid., IV .1, 1121B 24; X.5, 1175B 24, etc.
popularis, nam demos populus est; haec a p u d G raecos non sole tan tu m ,
sed luce ilia q u a sol p rim u m creatus fuit, sunt illustriora. Nec a “ cen su ”
tim ocratica n om inata est, ueru m oligarchica, non nom ine quidem , sed H . [R 171] Eisdem tribus in codicibus c o n seru atu r, scilicet:
re. Q uod ut clarius intellegas, Platonis ipsius u erb a subieci: oXiyap^iav
R , ff. 91r-92r
- Q alto T'.pr]p.dxwv TroXtxeiav, ev fj < o t > piv 7rXouatot ocpxoucrt- Oligarchiam,
S, foliis non num eratis
inquit, a censu nominatam politiam, in hac quidem diuites principantur. Plutar-
V , ff. 58r-59r
chus in Phocionis u ita sic in q u it, cum A n tip atru m conditiones pacis
A theliiensibus offerentem descripsisset, in ter cetera posuisse: TCoXeceuopi- A lfonsus Burgensis episcopus Petro C an d id o salutem .
vot^ Be xrjv ^dxptov cxtco Tijj.r)ji.dxtov TuoX'.xetav, q u ippe, rem publicam Athe- Q u a n d a m breuem litteram tu am , C an d id e mi dilectissim e, pridie re-
niensium non a populo, sed a d iu itib u s regi u olebat A n tip ater, ut facilius ceperam , deinde haud m agna tem poris m o ru la in teriecta aliam aliquanto
urbem sibi subiceret. A liud enim est timi, id est honor, aliud timema, quae prolixiorem recepi. Q u a ru m seriem conspiciens m ag n u m adm odum gau-
iacultas est. Q u a m o b re m , si haec a L eo n ard o posita sunt, claudicant om- 5 d iu m sum psi turn personae tuae, quam ten errim e diligo, sospitate
nino, pace dixerim tanti uiri qui q u a n to plus sapit, tanto m agis ueritati p ercepta, turn quia iis in studiis uersantem te uideo, quae honorem tibi
est obnoxius. Q ui si oligarchicam “ p au co ru m p o te n tia m ” dicit, archiam h o n estam q u e alacritatem tuis am icis adducent. A t cum per prim am illa-
non “ p rin c ip a tu m ” , sed “ p o te n tia m ” in te rp re te tu r necesse est, ru m , n ed u m p rim um librum ex Platonis Politia per te iam traductum
quod utique ab in terp retatio n e ipsa p enitus ab h o rret. am ico m eo praecipuo M ichaeli Pizolpasso pro me tran scribendum tradi-
R estat, ut breuissim e tibi m orem geram , ad ea quae de A ristotelis 10 disse insinuas, sed etiam sextum ex eadem P olitia ad exhortationem
E thicorum libris requiris. T a n g a m ig itu r rem ipsam parcissim e: cum m eam tra d u c tu ru m te pollicitus es, gratias non m ediocres ago pruden-
dicit siquidem nullius gratia placidus, si autem utilitatis alicuius sui blanditor, pro tissim ae am icitiae am icissim aeque pru d en tiae tuae, quod petitionibus
placido iucu n d u m , pro b landitore ad u lato rem dici reor. “ L asciuus” m eis plene satisfacere uoluisti. Spero autem executionem tuae promis-
nullb m odo potest adm itti. D einde, ubi a L eonardo positum est pro £tu- sionis, cum tem poris spatium o p p o rtu n itatem tibi, ut quod prom isisti
Xoup^xaxta, “ p eruersum g a u d iu m ” , p eru ersitatem proprie u id etu r 15 opere com pleas, dederit. Nec enim de te suspicari aliquatenus possum ,
desijjjnare. C eteru m res ponderosas adeo breuissim is uerbis explicat Phi- quod pollicitationem hanc in stom acho tuo obliuionis desidia operire
losophus, ut uix u erb a L atin a satisfaciant; G raeca, quae significatiora ualebit, sed quod u b eriter prom isisti, uberius, ut p u to , adim plebis. C um
sunt, optim e se hab ean t. Epieikeia, q u a m G raeci emeixeiocv uocant, recte uero secundam epistolam tuam legissem, in q u a n o n n u lla de proprietate
“ b o n ita s” est, qu am p leru m q u e ipsi pro m an su etu d in e, aliquando pro u e rb o ru m G raecorum disserebas, G raeca et L atin a adinuicem conleren-
pietate, aliquando pro m oderatione p o n u n t. V eru m “ perfectae bonita- 20 do, gau d iu m quod ex prim ae epistolae lectura susceperam , secundae in-
tis” designat nom en, nec aliter unico u erb o qu am bonitatem puto expli- spectione q u ad am cum ulatione ad au ctu m est, q u ia p lu rim a ex eis confor-
cari perfectissim am . m issim a m ihi rationi u id en tu r. Et iam uidere quodam m odo uideor,
H abes breu iter, optim e pater, quid sentiam uel q uid potius ab A retino q u are in terp res an tiquus nonnulla G raeca u e rb a in tacta dim isit, ilia pro-
nostro dissentiam . V ale. [1438]5 fecto praecipu e, ut arb itro r, m otus ratione, q u ia latin a sibi non occurre-
25 b a n t qu ae sub tarn stricto syllabarum com pendio integram rei designa-
tionem ex p rim erent. Est autem iucundissim um ac scientiae com m unica-
5 uolui ,VK 8 tneam orn. S mens V] meus R S 11 sperabitur R 14-17 hie illic accentus tioni accom m odissim um , qu an d o ipsa ratio do ctrin ae cum proprietate
nspirationesque utppleui quae ubique a hhranis inepte sunt nnpositae 17 touto ... Xiyos om. serm o n u m concordat. V ellem equidem in praesen tia, si D eus om nipo-
I’ '20-21 et hunt: unam ... aristocraticam om. S 40 oligarchicam 5 42 sic] sit 5 56-57
snixotpexaxta Arista teles: cxixadotx. sic R V: enixada sic S 60 extoixeCav sic RV, om. S; vid. tens te et m e in eodem loco aliquando conuenire concesserit, m ulta quae
Arrtitu rpist. in npp. font, laudatarn 30 in m o ralibus A ristotelis libris sub G raeco ex in d u stria interpretis relicta
c e rn u n tu r, ut ad ipsam incudem G raecam me praesente reduceres, qua-
14-1/ Rep. /1\ 445C 0-D8, plunbu.s autem practcrmi.ssi.s. 20 A d d i s L e o n a r d u m : relcrt ad
A r r i m i cpisi. \ ‘ 111 2 |X.24|. circa iinem. 39-40 Rep. V I II , 550C 1 1—0 1 43-44 Plutar-
tenus M artello tuo feriente m assae illius u alo r recognitus in L atina, ut
<4ms, I i i u R l w c . X X V I I . 3 54 Aristoteles Eth. S ic . I I . 7. 1108A28-29 = interpr. Aretini, ita dicam , m oneta aequo pondere ap p re tia retu r.
 584 P A R T II
TE X TS 585

Sed cum corporalis p raesen tia d eerit, in terd u m de his, q u an d o q u e dr per te traductum illustri principi duci Cloucestriae dirigebas, transcur-
35 illis prout m em oriae o ccu rrerin t scholasticum , si uis, serm onem , quando rens uiderem; et, si quid scriptoris uitio ex traducendi celeritate deficere
otium aderit, litteris m u tu is agam us; crescit enim studium studentium arbitrarer, corrigerem, quatenus libellus hie, qui originalis locum tenet
corrim unicatione. Q u ia uero in ter ea q u ae scripsisti non solum u erborum et a quo, tamquam exemplari, multa in posterum exempla forte sumen-
uim , sed aliquas A ristotelis sententias tangis in quibus a P latone dissen- tur, ab omnis corruptionis uitio alienus in praesentia illius incliti princi-
tire uidetu r, hoc, ut reor, altiorem speculationem req u irit. Nec enim in- 10 pis appareret. At ego litterulis tuis receptis, licet ministerium hoc alie-
40 ter hos duos sum m os philosophiae p rincipes aliquid perfunctorie deter- num a me fore conspicerem, cum Platonis in libris nullam familiaritatem
m inandum est, sed, ut in iudiciis arduissim is fieri solet, cum m aturissim a hucusque acquisiui, acceptaui tamen gratanter, cum ut desiderio tuo cui
cauiae cognitione et de p e rito ru m consilio p rocedendum . H an c igitur in- libenter complaceo satisfacerem, turn quia quaedam, ut ita dicam, neces-
uestigationem illi tem pori d im itta m u s, q u an d o per te tota Platonis Politia sitas uiris scholasticis inest, ut alter alterius contemplatione studiosos in-
in latinum serm onem erit d ed u cta, ut tota lege, pro u t iuristae aiunt, 15 terdum ferat labores, si laborum uerbo in iis uti fas sit, cum honesti studii
45 prospecta solidius quid dici debeat co niectetur. T u n c enim Deo largiente exercitium in delectationis amoenitate omnem otii. inertis uoluptatem
tarn per me, q u a n tu m im becillitas ingenioli mei ualu erit, q uam per alios transcendat, dicente Aristotele: uidetur philosophia admirabiles delecta-
qui ingenio ac peritia fulgent, in u estig arem libenter quid a P latone his tiones habere puritate et firmitate. Quern hie allegaui, ut incipiam tibi
in rebus A ristoteles ipse receperit, et in quo a Platonis iudicio dissentit, Aristotelem familiarizare, sicut et tu mihi familiarizas Platonem. Vellem
ut P latoni, de his quae a d in u e n it, nihil su b rip iam us, et A ristoteli, quod 20 equidem ut horum duorum uirorum opuscula, quae nedum temporis
50 laudabiliter ad au x it, sine aliq u a suppressionis suspicione attrib u am u s. cursu non abolentur, sed ipsa saeculorum uetustate uehementius dietim
Nec tenui gaudio m ens m ea p e rfu n d e re tu r, si originalia ac, ut ita dixe- incenduntur, bibliothecas tuam et meam pariter habitarent, et cum in
rim , m ineras h a ru m m o raliu m d o c trin a ru m in ipsa radice conspicerem . moralibus dissentire uiderentur, tu et ego tamquam communes amici nos
Propera ergo et, sicuti coepisti, o p e ra re , ut quam totius fieri com m ode medios interponentes, quantum fieri posset et scripturae eorum tollerare
poterit, tota Politia P latonis ad latinos te conducente d eu en iat, quatenus 25 ualerent, ad concordiam reduceremus.
55 m anibus sapientum latin o ru m tra c ta ta succum quern habet cogatur em it- Sed de hoc alio tempore forsan aptius latiusque disseremus. Nunc ad
tere, et cum Politicis A ristotelis in teg ra collatione conferri. Q u o d tibi rem quam incepimus accedamus. Laudaui prudentiam animi tui quia
m eritum apud D eum ac b o n u m no m en apud hom ines conferet, m o ra­ traductionem tuam, priusquam ad totalem lucem prodiret, alteri inspi-
lium uero sectatoribus non p a ru a m consolationem honestissim ique ciendam et, ubi opus esset, etiam corrigendam mandasti. Profecto nam-
laboris occasionem adducet. [1438] 30 que laudandum est hoc prudentissimum consilium tuum, cum saepe
nobis in scripturis nostris eueniat, quod in ludo scacorum, ut aiunt,
euenire frequentissime solet, ut plura qui astat inspiciens quam ipse
6 praecepta S (plene exscriptum) 9 scribendum S 45 quid /?F] quod S 46 quantum bis uideat qui ludit. Quamobrem summe utile iudico, praesertim in illis
R 47 fulgent] uulgent .S’ 53 sicuti Sf"] ut R 54te om. S conducende V
opusculis quae diuturnitate spem uerisimilem habent, amico alicui, qui
35 de ea re aliqualem intelligentiam habeat, inspicienda corrigendaque
I. [R 173] E pistulam ex p arte (linn. 1 - 1 0 , 1 9-25,45-59, 119-124) curauit scripta nostra, priusquam ad extraneorum noticiam deueniant mandare.
Z A C C A R IA (1959), pagg. 204-205 ex codice R iccardiano; integram Quod si amicus deest, uel in promptu eius copia haberi non potest,
autem nunc praebeo testibus eisdem q u am antea adhibitis, scilicet: saltern nos ipsi competenti temporis spatio interiecto reuideamus. Non
R , ff. 92r-94v enim expediens, puto, confestim uel intra modicam moram scripturas
S, foliis non n u m eratis 40 proprias ipsum componentem corrigere, cum eadem dispositione
V, ff. 59r-60v durante, eodem forte errore, quo in scribendo ductus est, in corrigendo
ducetur. Sed post dierum competentem transcursum, phantasmatibus
Alfonsus B urgensis episcopus P etro C a n d id o salutem . aliquantulum transmutatis, ipse idem qui scripsit, quasi quidam alter in-
G audenti oculo, dilectissim e C a n d id e , quasdam litterulas tuas pridie spicere ac diiudicare liberius potest.
conspexi, q u a ru m tenore fam iliari co n lid en tia < m > m ihi iniunxisti ut Om itto haec quae tu me longe melius nosti. Assumpsi igitur in
libellum p rim u m , quern ex P latonis P olitia a G raeca in latinam linguam manibus libellum tuum. At cum praefatiunculam, quam elegantissimo
 586 P A R T II TEXTS 587

stiJo p raeponere decreuisti, legerem , et ad ilium locum accessissem in m odi studiis p rofunde libereque uacare, praeberes? Si ex n a tu ra rei quid
quo disertissim um U b ertu m genitorem tu u m librorum Platonis traduc- to Socrates qu id u e alius condisputans aiebat, ei d iscernendum dim itteres,
tioni operam olim dedisse m em orabas, su p ra me resedi. V enit enim in desertorem u tiq u e studii efficeres uel, quod deterius foret, aliquando er-
>o m entem me illam trad u ctio n em uidisse. In q u iren s ergo bibliotheculam ro n eam forte propositionem , ut assum eret causam , dares. Nec enim
m eam repperi librum q u en d am , qui per sex libellos d istin g u itu r et De longe abesset, u t Platonis d o ctrinam plerum que p u ta re t, quod T hrasim a-
republica Platonis in titu la tu r, in cuius subscriptione talis annotatio chus d isp u tan s dicit, Socrati ascribendo, illudque acceptando quasi con­
iacebat: "E x p licit Platonis liber sextus et ultim us De republica sive us clusionem P latonis, quod nonnullis in locis periculosum errorem in-
Iustitia, quern U bertus D ecem ber cum su perioribus libris opere Em m a- duceret. Q u a re m ultis laboribus ac erroribus uiam praecludes traductio-
55 nuelis C hrvsolorae fideliter a G raeca lingua transtulit in latinam . ’ ’ C uius nem que tu am longe reddes gratiorem , si p rim am litteram nom inis cuius­
tenore aperte cognoui illam eandem trad u ctio nem esse q uam tu im per- libet dialogizantium in principio sui serm onis adieceris.
t'ectam m ansisse testabaris. D olui tam en quod liber ille adeo corruptissi- A lterum uero est quod per capitula tuam interp retatio n em distinguas,
mus vitio scriptorum erat, quod plerisque in locis fere inintellegibilis 100 licet in originali Platonis distincta non fuerint. N am etsi G raeci m ultique
red d eb atu r. Sed quia uero o m nia consonant et interdum libri co rru p ti ad latini scriptores, praesertim antiqui, sine capitulorum distinctione
60 correctionem aliorum non m odicum conferunt, ilium etiam accersiui. scribere co n su eu eru n t, plu rim u m tam en, ni tailor, tarn ad intelligentiam
E ram us ergo tres qui lecturae libelli tui d ab am us operam , q u o ru m unus reru m q uam ad fom entum m em oriae capitularis an n otatio confert.**
originate tu u m , alius trad u ctio n em U b erti progenitoris tui, ego uero li- E tenim luculentius intelligi tenacius in m em oria retineri certiusque alle-
bellum in m em b ran a conscriptum legebam , et cum aliquid m ihi obscure 105 gari rep eririq u e u a l e < n > t , quae sub co ngrua capitulorum designatione
positium u id eb atu r, nedum ad originalis u erb a, sed ad aliam quoque iacent discreta q uam quae in uno prolixo libello sub quadam contusione
65 translationem recu rreb am . T ra n sc u rri igitur satis uelociter, qu ia occupa- ce rn u n tu r. Iam tu pridie illas duas em endationes quas fieri petebas, ut
tiones aliae me in hoc non sinebant m orari. Et quoniam per aliam codu- quibus in locis re p e rire n tu r ediceres ad n u m eru m foliorum te oportuit re-
lam tuam dignissim o praesuli M ediolanensi directam duobus in locis m ittere. N onn e in d u b itatiu s ad capitula, si distincta fuissent, remiseras?
quaedam u erb u la em en d ari cupiebas, ilia confestim reform are cu rau i, et 110 H aec tibi fraterno anim o dicta, oro te ut fratern a m ente recipias. Con-
quodam in loco, u n u m ualde pro responsione T h rasim achi, quae defi- sulo etiam tibi, sicuti et tu m ihi ut consuleres in casu simili uellem. Si
70 cere u id eb atu r, adieci, in alio uero ubi prim o, Praeterea, o Trasimache, iam tam en tibi hoc non expedire u idebitur, nullam necessitatem im pono,
clarum arbitror, scriptum erat, his uerbis m u tatis loco eorum : Num ergo, o cum nec im ponere possem . A rbitrio nam que tuo opuscula tua dirigere
Trasimache iam clarum arbitrans? scripsi, et p er aliqua alia loca ubi aliquid potes, cum am ici consilium nullam am ico coactionem im ponat. Sed hoc
mihi c o rru p tu m u id e b a tu r paucissim a q u aed am m u tau i, ea fide uersa- 115 u n u m posco, quod, licet in aliis libellis sequi hoc nolueris, saltern in illo
tus, q u a in re p ro p ria u ersarer. Sic ergo m inisterium per te m ihi iniunc- secundo libello, quern m ihi pollicitus es, m orem m eum gerere uellis, et
75 turn expleui, sed hoc sic expleto p aucula q u aedam tibi am icabili m ente u tru m q u e quod su p ra tetigi obseruare cures. Solent etiam artifices iuxta
dicere non inco n g ru u m p u tau i, q u o ru m u n u m hoc est. C u m Plato per p eten tiu m uo ta opera fabrilia conficere, licet sibi forte aliter conficienda
dialogi m odum procedat, u tillim um reor ut b reuibus litteris quis loquitur u id en tu r. T u ergo u t h aru m traductionum prudentissim us artifex, hanc
an n p tetu r. quod nedum U b ertu s genitor tuus bene obseruauit, sed et alii 120 q u am m ihi traductionem litteris tuis prom isisti, oro te ut ad arbitrium
fam osissim i scriptores hoc in dialogis sem per obseruant.* Sic G regorius, m eum conficias, et dialogizantes cum loqui in cipiunt, designes capitula
HO sic A nselm us et alii paene in n u m eri, qui aliquos libros dialogizando illis in locis ubi co ngruum existim aueris distinguendo.
scripserunt, hoc diligenter atten d ere cu ra u e ru n t. A lioquin su p eruacua V ellem etiam u ltra cetera a te discere quid in ilia traductione eloquen-
diffitultas ex q u ad am am b ig u itate o rire tu r, cum necessarium foret quod tissim i U b e rti te potius offendit. A n quia forte totum librorum num erum
ex ipsa q u alitate m ateriae, quae fuerint u erb a Socratis, quae G lauconis, 125 non trad u x it? An qu ia ilia quae traduxisse uisus est non plene ac perfecte
quae T h rasim ach i, sem oto om ni signo in q u iram u s, quae inquisitio pro- conscripserit? Et quid in hoc senseris mihi describe. V ale, mi dilectissime
65 tecto laboriosa legentibus p lu rim u m erit. C onsulerem ergo u t, an teq u am C an d id e. [M ense Iulio uel A ugusto, 1438]
libellu s hie oculis su b iciatu r extraneis, in capite cuiuslibet orationis quis
loqu atu r annotes. P utasne p a ru m laboris, praesertim m agno principi illi
2 litterulas /V/51S] litteras Zaccana 4 helium sic V 5 Clouccstrie RV] Cloucestri 6:
C loucestrensi, qui aliis occupationibus im peditus non potest huiusce- Cloucestrensi Zaccaria 8 exemplaris S 9 omnis corruptionis .V/Sy] omni comp[osi]tionis
 588 P A R T II TE X TS 589

Zaccaria 10 licet .WT] sed V 46 cum om. V 46-47 legerem post praefatiunculam Zac - ficiam . Id quidem libentissim e faciam dato tem pore, nam inpresen-
caria 50 bibliotheculam RV \ bibliothecam S , Zaccaria 54 tibi post opere V Manuelis tiaru m librarius m ihi deest opportunus. V eru m ut quae scripta sunt a me
V, E. Manuelis 5 55 in latinam transtulit A/SS] transtulit in latinam Zaccaria 56 esse]
interim intelligas: traduxi Platonis librum De amicitia, periucundum
essgm R 58 plerique R uitio scriptorum M SS\ scriptorum uitio Zaccaria intelligibilis
S y 60 accersius V 64 quoque ad aliam S 66-67 cedulam MSS, fort, ex ineptia auctons quidem nec C iceroniano opusculo persim ilem , nam diuersa ab illo dicen-
68 Curaui scripsi] curari M SS 7 5 sic scripsi] fit M SS 79 dialogus M SS 80 penne 5F 90 di form a am icitiae uim inquirit et, in sum m a, tan tu m hom inem am ari,
quidne 5 94 dicit om. S 96 percludes V 98 adieceris om. V 116 secundo sic MSS; re
lera sexto q u a n tu m utilis est non explicat, sed insinuat. T ran stu li praeterea
decim um sextum D iodori Siculi, interm issis reliquis ob decessum Nicolai
17 Aristoteles, Etk. Nic. X, 7, 1177a nostri sum m i pontificis, qui etiam ceteros a Poggio traductos a me
* In marg. R manu P. Candidi: Attende qua causa motus Petrus Candidus addidit nomina cot-
tran sferri iusserat. N ouus profecto labor a quo cum dom ino pariter
locutorum in Politia Platonis quae superuacua uidentur. ** In marg. R manu eadem: Ratio liberatus sum .
capitulorum V ale. R om e, prim o Iulii 1457. raptim .

J . [R 174] Eisdem tribus in codicibus co n se ru atu r, scilicet: 3-4 et'ficia sic .4 10 Diodri sic .4

R , f. 94v
S, foliis non num eratis
V, f. 60v L. [A 167] Eisdem duobus in codicibus con seru atu r, scilicet:

Petrus C an d id u s Alfonso B urgensi episcopo salutem . A, ff. 83r-85v

Q uis p ater in filium adeo p e rh u m a n u s q u eat reperiri ac tu ipse mihi G , ff. 6 9 r-7 lv
es, p ater hum anissim e; itaque percipio ex studiis m eis non m ediocrem Alfonsus Burgensis episcopus uir doctissim us Petro C an d id o salutem .
uoluptatem . Faueo enim fam ae tuae, sed im prim is m eae, et ex tua sa- N on ex desidia, C andide mi dilectissime ... /A f. 84r/ Nec tam en tem-
pientia fructum affero, quale n ullum ex antiquis illis qu o ru m opera p o ru m m alitia tantum inualuit, quin opuscula tua quae ad me his tem-
dietim lectito queam consequi. Itaq u e tuis m onitis om nino parere, et poribus accesserunt oculo diligenti perlegerem . V enit enim ad nos am i­
quae scribis exequi, m ens est. lu b e m odo p arentem et beniuolum con- cus noster, quern tu bene nosti, studiosus u ir archidiaconus de T reuino
tinuo percipies. N am qui doctiori p aret non seruit quidem , sed im perat, qui Politiam Platonis per te ex G raeco in L atin u m trad u ctam polite et
si quidem im perare est sensu et ratione m ultos anteire, quae sapientum curiose in lim pida m em b ran a conscripta po rtau it. Q u am ego gaudens
m onitis d u m tax at ad ip iscu n tu r. Q u a e de trad uctione patris mei et m ea recepi ac desideranter legi, qu an tu m tem poris op p o rtu n itas perm ittere
a me rogitas, differam in id tem pus tibi referre, cum u tram q u e diligenter uoluit. C o m m en d au i siquidem sententias platonicas, laudauique minis-
inspexeris et aequ io r iudex u tra q u e percep ta causa esse poteris. Vale. terium tu u m quod illas apud L atinos in lucem eduxit. H ab et iam Plato
[1438]3 de quo tibi gratias agat; habem us et nos. Ille quippe quia uigilias suas
et accu rata studia quibus, ut arb itro r, Politiam hanc conscribens
uehem entissim e laborauit sub u m bra G raecae obscuritatis inclusam ,
3 praecipio V 8 doctori R 12 utrumque S V quasi ex quad am nocte ad diem claram latinae litterae deduxisti. Nos
u ero q u ia solam A ristotelis Politicam legebam us, nunc uero istam
K. [A 88] E xtat duobus in codicibus, scilicet: habentes, duabus Politiae instructionibus sum us m u n iti. Q uae autem il-
laru m aliam acum ine rationis excedat quaeue ad nostram doctrinam
A — A m bros. I 235 inf., f. 8 6 v, e G enuensi descriptus, ut uid.
com ponendosque m ores ciuitatum n o strarum excellentior copiosiorque
G — G enuens. U niv C V II 46 (G aslinus 49), m an u Petri C a n ­
sit, praesentis inquisitionis non est. Q u id tam en circa hoc sentis, sum m a-
didi hie illic correcto
tim a u d ire desidero, et alteri tem pori, si om nipotentis Dei benignitas
Petrus C an d id u s Alfonso Burgensi episcopo salutem . trib u erit, latiorem huius rei inquisitionem reseruem us. Ac si ceteri
D uas epistolas b reui tem poris spacio a te suscepi, in quibus efflagitas om nes gratias tibi de hoc labore reddere ten e a n tu r, ego autem ut unus
ut, si quid e G raecis ad nostros trad u x erim , te p ariter participem el- ex ceteris et aliquanto ultra ceteros g ratiarum actiones ago, quia aliquam
 590 P A R T II
TEXTS 591

menrtoriam m ei habere uoluisti, et sextum m ihi librum dirigens, etiam in exacto tem pore p eru en eru n t, tardiusque deuenissent nisi fam iliaris qui-
principal! p raefatiu n cu la m en tio n em facere decreuisti. H ab eb as nem pe 3 dam m eus ad inclitam urbem C o rd u b am ut em eret aliquos equos de illis
alios m ultos quos digne m ihi p rae p o n e re potuisses; tan ta tam en fuit quos G inetos uocant, quibus ciuitas ilia ab u n d a re solet, profectus fuisset.
dignatio tu a tan taq u e b enignitas, ut m em o re co m m unicationum nostra- E tenim ciuitatem ingressus cum hinc inde p er d iuersas eius partes uiden-
ru m quae p er scripta n o stra in aliis, u t ita dicam , saeculis tran sieru m , d o ru m eq u o ru m occasione deam bulans a nobili u iro N u n io de G uzm an
me in m em oriae tuae cellula clauis dilectionis fixum haberes. H u n c igitur uisus cognitusque fuisset, tradidit illi ut ad me re p o rta re t literas tuas
librqm tu u m aeternae d iu in itatis d e m e n tia p rotegente freq u en ter habebo 10 breues lineis, sed suauitate et am icitiae dulcore non m odice copiosas una-
in fam iliaritate m ea, turn p ro p te r insignes d o ctrinas quae in eo luculen- que cum illis librum declam ationum tu a ru m quern ego laetissim o anim o
tissime co n tin en tu r, turn p ro p te r tui arnoenam recordationem qui m ihi uidi et auidissim a m ente ex parte perlegi. Et cum d u o m erean tu r, immo
ilium m ittere illiusque p artem n o m im m eo dedicare uoluisti. ...
per ilium tu m erearis ilia, siquidem ut gratias tibi agam et tuum in-
Ex Burgis, X I m ensis D ecem bris, 1463. [re uera 1447/1450]** genium ad m irer sim ul et laudem , quid h orum p rim o au t in quo proten-
15 sius im m o rer non plene an im ad u erti, cum aliud ab alio pendere, ex diuer-
sis respectibus adinuicem proponi debere u id eatu r: g ratiaru m enim actio
5 l icumc sic .-! 6 politic MSS. fort, cx industna. sal. ion ornlia 17 acumunie M SS 27
mcmprc (7j mcoruin .1 30 habco .1 32 tui) cui .1 q u an d o aliquid operis grati recepim us praesto esse debet et im m ediate
beneficii recepti notitiae coniuncta, sed cum ingenii ad m iratio ex ipsa
‘ uid. Z AC C :AR IA (1959). p. 193. atln. 4. consideratione opusculi inspecti confestim procedit, om n ia alia secun-
20 d um ipsum n atu rae ordinem praecedere u id e n tu r. C u m tam en in hoc
M . |A 168] Eisdem d uobus in codicibus a d seru atu r, scilicet: au t in illo condigne scribere non ualeo, h u m a n ita ti tuae confisus utrum -
que breuissim is uerbis pertransiens gratias q u id em ago. Sed non ego
A, If. 85v’-86r
solus, q u in im m o etiam ipsa ueritas agat, q u am sic illud dare uoluisti—
G , ff. 71v-72r
ueritatisq u e zelatores te am are u en erari ac colere d eb en t quia ueritatem
25 u t alter A ristoteles affectioni particulari p raep o n ere decreuisti. Tenebo
Petrus C an d id u s A ltonso B urgensi episcopo regio consiliario salutem .
ergo ilium apud me q u an tu m deus concesserit in te r cetera egregia opus-
Accepi epistolam tu am ... /A f. 8 6 r/ G au d eo Platonis Politiam ad te
cula tu a ut m aue quoddam ingenii tui et lau d ab iliu m laborum tuorum
fideliter d elatam ut o p ta b a m et epistolas illas declam atorias quas partim
m em oriale, sperans et alia ad me laboris tui m em o rab ilia scripta diri-
co n tra te, partim pro te egi. V eru m nihil c o n tra te cum in laudem tuam
gente d iu in a d e m e n tia p e ru e n tu ra quae an im u m sim ul oblectent et in-
perscriptae u id ean tu r, a tte n ta u eritate. N am A retin u m non pluris te feci,
30 stru an t.
q u a m q u a m illi notus e s s e < m > , tibi ignotus. ... V ale. Ex M ediolano,
Sed et illud non m odicum lau d au i, quod epistolas aliquas super diuer-
X X D ecem bris, 1463. [1466*]
sis m ateriis hinc inde uagantes recolligens sub secunda libri parte
adiecisti. Et enim ingenii tui acum ine form am q u a n d a m inuenis per
q u am insignem com pilationem ex m ultis collectam tu am efficere poteris
3, 4 partim) partem ,1
35 cum a diuersis auctoribus scrip titata quae relatione digna conspexeris,
* uid. epist. sequentem, cui haec uidetur respondere. p raesertim ilia quae inter se per scholasticae disp u tatio n is palaestram ua-
lidis rationibus ac dulcibus persuasionibus a lte ru tru m honeste concer-
N. [A 169] Eisdem d uobus in codicibus a d se ru a tu r, scilicet: ta n t, ne incerte u ag en tu r sub uolum ine uno restrinxeris. De hoc enim
declam ationes an tiq u ae nobis seruire u o lu eru n t.
A, ff. 8 6 r- 8 8 v
30 Ac in ter illas epistolas quas secundae p arti adicere uoluisti elegantem
G , ff. 72r-74r
d isp u tan d i m ateriam aperire m ihi uisae su n t illae d u ae, q uarum altera
Francisci B arbari ciuis V eneti, ut ais, ad q u e n d a m innom inatum sub
Alfonsus Burgensis episcopus Petro C a n d id o salutem . nom ine populi Brixensis directa rem publicam V enetam extollit et
L itterae tuae. uir disertissim e, ap u d .M ediolanum decim a nona Octo- regim ini illustrissim i principis tui preferre c o n a tu r, altera tua qua [est]
bris de anno quaclragesim o q u in to conscriptae ad m an u s m eas longe post 15 ex aduerso eundem inclitum principem tu u m fideli honestate defendis il-
 592 P A R T II
TEXTS 593

liusque regim en V enetae g u b ern atio n i an tep o n ere niteris. Sed enim haec O . [A 214] E pistolam ex parte (linn. 1-7) edidit J . A. S A X IU S , in
disceptatio non respectu p erso n aru m quae hodie u iu u n t— illud nam que Historia litteraria-typographica Mediolanensis {im pr. M ediolani, a. 1745), col.
potius inuectiuas quam d isp u tatiu as epistolas faceret— sed ipsius politiae C C X C IV e codice A m bros.; integram hie praebeo ex eisdem duobus
contem platione fieret p ulchra profecto et utilis declam atio insurgeret. codicibus q uam antea, scilicet:
50 Et si aliq u an tu lu m accurate p rocederet, om nis ut arb itro r Senecae A, f. 108r
transcenderent declam ationes au cto ritate et utilitate p arite r et decore. G , f. 92v-93r
Q u ia ea quae in personas o b ic iu n tu r d u b ia et incerta sunt, sim ul tran-
sitoria, cum m u lta saepe in huiuscem odi rebus d ican tu r quae a ueritate C an d id o oratori et poetae luculentissim o O ctau iu s V icom ercatus
non m odicum sunt pereg rin a et cum ipsa u ita personarum contenden- salutem dicit.
33 tium tran seu n t; quae uero pro u n a, co n tra politiam diceren tu r perpetua L ib ru m Platonis de am icitia a te e G raeco L atinum factum tibi remit-
sunt absque testium receptione; p er ipsum rationis lum en discerni to, quern si diutius quam m ihi perscripseras tenui, non negligentiae aut
u a l e r e < n > t . C u m ergo epistolae duae quas praen o m in au i ad illud 5 oblivioni m ihi id a ttrib u en d u m fuerit, sed eius libri suauitati atque
praecipue declinare u id e a n tu r, q u o d altera tim ocraticam seu popularem elegantiae, qu a m iru m in m odum delectatus et quodam m odo accensus
politiam (cui V en eto ru m respublica principalius confirm ari uid etu r, licet non m odo saepius lectitaui, u erum etiam exscribi uolui. C uius enim
60 ex aliis politiis aliqua forsan, sicut in terd u m sit, com m ixta habeat) mo- aures ille tuus serm o disertissim us non perm ulceat? C ui ille tuus Lysis
narchicae proponere uisa est, altera uero m on archicum regim en quo in risum non m oueat, qui tarn com m ode respondet? A b eo qui abs te ad me
terris suis d o m inum tu u m uti uidem us excellens esse defendit. Si haec 10 uenit accepi, te pedibus et m anibus laborare, quod m ihi fuit
disputatio in altu m tra h e re tu r, non m ediocriter decora consurgeret. m olestissim um . Itaque oro ut ualitudinem tuam cures et haec frigora
H abet enim haec altercatio m u lta quae hinc inde tarn d isputando quam uites, n am puto huius m orbi causam inde profectam . Si quid possum tuo
65 suadendo adici uaierent, n am licet m onarchica politia excellere uideatur, arb itrio utere, tu uelim si quid aliud dom i a te com positum habes me par-
tam en per dispu tan d i conflictum propo rtio n e facta excellentia sua clarior ticipem facere digneris; m iru m enim in m odum tu o ru m operum lectio
euaderet, nec non et illud forsan seq u eretu r, quod per disputationis for-
15 me delectat.
nacem q uicquid in u tra q u e illarum indecens in terd u m [non] rep eritu r V ale. 1464, K alendas Februarias.
quasi in quodam speculo m anifestius reluceret, qu aten u s ab om ni inde-
70 centia tarn per hanc q u am p er illam p opulum g u b ernantes accuratius
discepdo et u n am q u am q u e illarum in sua p u ritate tenendo, cum am bae 1 Vicecomercatus A 8 discertissimus A 12 perfectam A
laudabiles sint et iuxta qu alitatem regionum p o p u lo ru m q u e inclinationes
accom odae, gentes sibi subditas honestissim e et feliciter g u b ernarent.
Sed haec tibi qui p rincipium adinuenisti ut progressum si u idebitur
/3 facias: d im ittens, illud solum edicam , q u o d si anim o tuo constitueris ut P. [A 249] Eisdem duobus in codicibus ad seru atu r, scilicet:
coepisti epistolas declam atorias colligere, unicu iq ue declam ationi praefa-
A, ff. 124r-125r
tiuncqlam aliquam quae arg u m en tu m solet uocari praeponere non om it-
G , ff. 108v-109v
tas, ut q u aen am m ateria sit super q u a d iscep tatur sub u erb o ru m com-
pendio legentibus lucidius innotescat. Q u o fiet ut disputationes ipsas P etrus C an d id u s C o n stan tin o de Iardis secretario.
80 clarius intelligere u alean t, cum p leru n q u e co n tin gat quae in u n a prouin- N u p er non sine adm iratione quadam te assistente nonnullorum opi-
cia uel tem pore notissim a sunt, in aliis prouinciis uel saeculis ignotissim a nionem au dieb am quibus u id e b a tu r P latonem in sua republica m ulieres
esse. ... /f. 8 8 v/ V ale, p ru d en tissim e ac eloquentissim e u ir am ice mihi om nes et filios nec non possessiones posuisse com m unes. Q u ae quidem
percarissim e. Ex Sassam on oppido B urgensis dioecesis, 1456, die uero opinio, nedum apud ignaros tan tu m et inexpertes studiorum
X X V IIII Iulii. h u m an itatis, ueru m apud doctos quosdam habitos, q uorum princeps est
L actantius, au ctoritatem sum psisse uid eb atu r. Q u a de re quid ipse sen-
tias non intelligo, sed rite te sentire h au d q u aq u am dubito; uerum ut quae
10 dulcore ex corr. G\ dulciore A 17 immedietate A 18 notitiae om. A 20 uidetur.'1 44
qua| que M SS est sectusi 45 ex s.s. G 68 non del. G 69 mamfestus A 78 quena sic A ipse putem p ariter ex me audias, sic habeto.
594 F A R T II T E X TS 595

Plato trip artitam descripsit an im am : posuit enim rationem in capite. hominem calumniari et plures etiam ante ipsum calumniantem. Sed nec mihi calurn-
irarri in cordc, eoncupiscentiam uero in praecordiis collocauit. Ad huius niari pariter calumniantes generosum uidetur esse postquam et nunc sunt qui Platom
sim ilitudinern rem publicam uicissim statu it. N am custodes, id est rei calculum adiciant.
publicae g u b ern ato res, ueluti ratione pracditos aliis praeesse uoluit. H aec de Platonis com m unione et A ristotelis iudicio uisum est
M ilites ad irae sim ilitudinern subinde apposuit, reliquos artifices et < m ittere > tibi, hom ini doctissim o bo n aru m artiu m et veritatis am atori,
agricolas concupiscentiae co m p arau it ueluti ignaros et u en tri deditos. et qui Platonis libros a me traductos legeris aut legere potueris ut si quid
C um igitur haec optim e instituisset, custodes nihil proprii habere sanxit in co n trariu m sentias intelligam .
ex lege, sed in com m une uiuere et a populo n u triri et ob id eos ‘populi V ale, ex aedibus F errariensibus, V O ctobr. 1467.
custodes' esse dixit; p opulum autem custodum n u trito re m appellauit.
Hos filios et uxores com m unes habere concessit, non quod illis prom iscue
ab u teren tu r, ut L actan tiu s ipse et alii satis im periti iu d icaru n t, sed prin- 15 u e n t r i ] u e n tu ri A 16 c u s t o d e m A p ro p rii om. A 25 p raestan tes A 29 cum ... l o ­

cipis m an d ato d u m ta x a t se com m iscentes, ut ex bonis m eliores gigneren- q u eretu r bis A 32 c o n silia s ,-l 41 a lis A 42 G e m istu s malirn 46 A rabi M SS 47
h o m in i] h onum sic .4 53 c a lu m n ita te s .4 55 H aec] N ec A
tur, et ne quid ex com m uni rap eren t. C o n tra h uiusm odi legem Aristote-
les q id etu r disserere Pohticorum suorum libro secundo, licet Platonis opi- 43-54 T r a d u c ta ex G e m isti P l e th o n i s lib ello De difjerentus Platonis et A ristotelis , cap. 1 (ed.

nionem ipse intelligat et corrigere affectet. At uero plebei indocti quidam L agarde, p. 321)

et iqrisperiti aliqui in falsa opinione perstan tes, id pro uero affirm ant et
Platonem o m nia in republica sua posuisse co m m u n ia asserunt. Q uod
quam a ueritate deuiet satis liquet P latonis libros in tu en tib u s et Aristote-
lis Uerba diligenter p erscru tan tib u s. Q u i libro Politicorurn secundo, ut
praefertur, sic scribit, cum de P latonis Politia lo q u eretu r, Socratem 53. Petri C an d id i praefationem in dialogum Platonis qui Lysis dicitur
solum nom inans illis in libris colloquentem , non P latonem . D iu id itu r ab eodem Petro C an d id o latine redditum curau it V ictor Z A C C A R IA
autem in duas partes m u ltitu d o h a b ita n tiu m , haec quidem in agricolas, (1956), p. 54 ad n ., ex cod. Ferrariensi.
haec autem in partem quae ad bellum ; tertiu m autem consilians et prin-
cipale ciuitatis. De agricolis autem et artificibus u tru m ullo aut aliquo F — F errariensis, Bibl. C om un. II 66
participant p rin cip atu , et u tru m a rm a opo rteat possidere, etiam hos pug- M — M atritens. U niu. N .F . 118-Z-20
nare aut non, de his nihil d eterm in au it Socrates. D einde inferius: p raeter P etri C an d id i in libro Platonis De amicitia ad illustrem u iru m O ctauium
enim m u lierum co m m u n io n em et possessionis, alia eadem trad it am- de U baldinis prologus incipit.
babus politiis, ex q u ib u s clare quiuis d e p reh en d erit com m unionem Platonis librum qui Lysis inscribitur cum e G raeco serm one in latinum
m uherum et filiorum ac possessionum non attrib u i nisi ciuitatis transtulissem , ueritus adm odum sum ne qui in deteriorem partem
custodibus, id est princip ib u s, a Platone. deflecterent laborem m eum ac sic in te rp re ta ren tu r me desidia quadam et
Est quippe talis ta n ta q u e ipsius au cto ritas apud om nes ut sapientum inep titu d in e adduci ad huiusm odi scriptionem qui Platonis libros circum -
iudicio aestim etu r nec in his au t in aliis quae a doctis trad ita sunt errare cisos un d iq u e et a m b e < c i> s o s non praesentibus m odo, sed posteris
potqisse, et G eorgius G em isti vir erud itissim u s p arite r asseruit, quern de trad erem (sic enim m ulti et praeclari uiri de aliorum studiis solent
Platonis operibus et A ristotelis ita locutum fuisse constat: Ex nostris anti- iudicare), ut satius sit aut G raecas litteras n u m q u am attigisse, aut
quiotes Graecorum et Romanorum Platonem Aristoteli praeter modum anteponunt. quae ab illis m em oriae inscripta et m an d ata sunt intacta reliquisse.
Qui autem nouiores in occidente plurimi utpote illis sapientiores se arbitrantes V eru m enim uero ii m axim e a d m ira n tu r au t potius despiciunt quae a
Anslotelem prae Platone admirantur, Averroi cuidam Arabo credentes, solum nobis co n scrib u n tu r qui expertes litteraru m nihil nisi quod ipsis placeat
Aristotelem dicenti perfectum in sapientia opus attigisse — homini quidem alias docto, colendum p u tan t a bonis hom inibus. Q uod si priscorum aetate legerint
non autem ita facile tudicare potenti, qui sermonem de anima habitum sic uanum id a plerisque factitatum qui nunc in honore h a b en tu r, desinent prolecto
pularit ut ipsam rnortalem ponat; qui autem huiusmodi eruditionem inenarrabilem ad m irari, praecipue cum C iceronem m ulta a D em osthene sum psisse,
esse point, cuius studiosi opens tudex jiet dignus? et haec Aristotele non eodem modo V ergilium plurim a ab H om ero transtulisse intelligant, et tam cn non
existtmante hanc eruditionem inenarrabilem esse. Oportet quippe uera dicere, neque om nes locos, sed quae eis libuissent, excerpsis.se.
 596 P A R T II
TE X TS 597

Ego autem cum ad te aliquid inscribere instituissem quod uirtu te tua [T itulus totius operis. P lr, A V Ir]
dignum esset, ab hoc potissim um duxi au sp icandum . Q u id enim Platonis
20 doctrina illustrius, quid d isp u tatio n e ilia iucundius, in q u a de re ab om ­ L actantii Firm iani errata quibus ipse deceptus est hoc libro per fratrem
nibus u ulgata, a paucis cognita, sum m is dignissim a laudibus quaeritur? A n thonium R audensem theologum collecta et ex arata sunt.
C uius participes uix duo au t q u a ttu o r ab om ni saeculo fuisse referunt.
Q u o ru m e n um ero cum te uicissim esse cupiam , aut his persim ilem , [Ex capitulo tertio libri secundi. P 49r, A 59v]
sum psi eas d u m tax at p artes qu ae m in u s ab h o rreren t a nostris m oribus.
T u n c C an d id i oratione com pleta om nes N icolaum [A rcim boldum ]
25 Leges itaque P latonem n o stru m , O c ta u ia n e clarissim e, inscriptum tuo
rogare coepim us ut Institutionum Diuinarum lib ru m — sic enim ilium Lac-
nom ini, ut q u em ad m o d u m in ter am icos decet, com m uni uoluptate me-
5 tantius appellat— aperiret m orem que suum lectitando prosequeretur.
curq perfruare. N am cum reliq u o ru m scripta partim utilitatem partim
C eteri qui aderam us eo die non locuturos dixim us, u eru m disceptantes
uero iucunditatem afferant, hie solus est qui sua lectione et doctis
sim ul N icolaum ipsum et C an d id u m ex uoto audituros. C onticuim us ita­
satisfaciat et im p erito ru m cup id itati q ueat deseruire.
que statim om nes /A 60r/ intentique ora tenebam us. N icolaus autem
recluso libro in eum tertii locum ubi L actantius ipse Platonem im-
10 p u g n ab at incidit. Serm o suus hie erat:
1-2 titulus deest in XI. sed in m ara. add. manu.s saec. X V I I ut aid.: P l a t o n i s L v s i a s f i r ] i n t e r -
p re te in ce rto . 4 s u m a d m o d u m XI 5 a c si M 7 a m b e s o s M: arn leso s F 9 satis XI 13
Matrimonia, inquit Plato, communia esse debebunt. Sed quid hoc aliud est nisi
a b o j n i s h o m i n i b u s ] a b o m s m o r i b u s X IS S : a l o i s m o r i b u s m c le u . Zaccana 1 4 d e s i n u n t Zac- ut ad eandem mulierem multi uin tamquam canes confluant, et is utique optineat
ca n a l b t a m e n | t a r n Zaccana 18 c:u m | a m m a m M qui uinbus uicent, aut si sapientes sunt, ut philosophi, expectent et uicibus tanquam
15-17 cl. Aulus Gellius. Xnct. A tt. I X . 9, 1-3
lupanar obeant? 0 miram Platonis aequitatem! Ubi est igitur uirtus castitatis, ubi
15 fides coniugalis, quae si tollas, omnis iustitia sublata est? At idem dixit beatas
ciuitates fuisse futuras si aut philosophi regnarent aut reges philosopharentur. Huic
uero tarn lusto, tarn aequo uiro regnum dares qui aliis abstulisset sua, aliis con-
donasset aliena, prostituisset pudicitiam feminarum, quae nullus unquam non modo
54. Petri C an d id i ut u id e tu r sen ten tia de com m unione Platonica rex, sed ne tyrannus quidem fecit? Quam tamen intulent rationem turpissimi huius
m ulierum b o n o ru m q u e ex A ntonii R au d en sis libro secundo Dialogorum in 20 consilu uidendum est. A it enim ciuitas concors ent et amons mutui constncta uin-
Lactantium d ep ro m p ta. Q u a m cu rau i iuxta fidem codicis A m bros. D 105 culis si omnium omnes fuennt et mariti et patres et uxores et liberi. Quae ista confusio
sup ., ff. 59v-71v, olim N icolai A rcim boldi. Ille A rcim boldus hie illic generis humani est! Quomodo seruari caritas potest ubi nihil cerium est quod ametur?
anim aduersiones in m argine adiecit quas rep eriat lector ad textus pedem Quis aut uir mulierem aut mulier uirum diliget nisi habitauennt semper una, nisi
positas (uid. su p ra, uol. 1, p. 149). C ollatus est q uoque codex P ar. lat. deuota mens et seruata inuicem fides indiuiduam jecent caritatem? Quae
1678, ff. 49r-59r, quern Jo h . Jo a c h . SB A R A L E A lau d at ut autographum 25 uirtus in ilia promiscua uoluptate locum [non] habet? Item si omnes omnium liberi
(uid. eius Supplementum et Castigationem ad Scriptores Trium Ordinum S. Fran- sunt, quis amare filios tamquam suos poterit, cum suos esse aut ignoret aut dubitet?
cisci a Waddingio aliisue desenptos, edit. nou. [im pr. R om ae, a. 1908], Pars Quis honorem tanquam patri deferet, cum unde natus sit nesciat? Ex quo fit ut non
I, p. 93). Q u o d autem me iudice nullo m odo fieri potest, ut inspicienti modo alienum pro patre habeat, sed etiam patrem pro alieno. Quid, quod uxor potest
cuipis ap p aratu m in fine positum plane ap p arebit. C odices quidem duo esse communis, film s non potest, /P 49v/ quern concipi < non > nisi ex uno necesse
hie collati, ut u id etu r, sic d educti su n t ab archetypo: 30 est? Pent ergo ilia una communitas reclamanle natura. Superest tantummodo ut con-
( ji cordiae causa uxores uelint esse communes. At nulla uehementior discordiarum causa
est quam unius feminae a multis maritis appetitio. In quo Plato si ratione non
x potuit, exernphs certe potuit admonen et mutorum animalium quae ob hoc uel acer-
rime pugnant et hominum qui saepe ob earn rem grauissima inter se bella gesserunt.
A B *’ Restat ut communio ista nihil aliud habeat praeter adulteria et libidines. [... ] Vin
qui multas rnuheres habent nihil aliud d id possunt quam luxunosi et nepotes. Item
A — A m bros. D 105 sup. quae /A 60v/ a multis habentur non utique adulterae, quia certum matrimonium
P — Par. lat. 1678 nullum est, sed prostitutae ac meretnees sint necesse est. Redegit ergo humanam
 T E X TS 599
598 P A R T II

laus, “ Pace tu a ,’’ inquit, “ et bona uenia dicam , mi C an d id e, nim ium

uitarh ad similitudinem, non dicam mutorum, sed pecudum et beluarum: nam
d u ra e ceruicis es, obstinatus et tenax. C onsuesti alias pro innata tibi
4u uolucres paene omnes matrimoma faciunt, et paria mnguntur, et nidos suos tanquam
p raecip u a h u m an itate non difflcilis, ceterum in om nes suauis, comis et
gemales toros concordi mente defendunt, et foetus suos, quia certi sunt, amant, et si
m itis esse. Q u o abiit ille piacabilis anim us tuus, ubi ilia tu a in responden-
alienos obieceris abiiciunt. At homo sapiens contra morem hominum contraque
85 do dulcedo et affabilitas? U nde tibi tan ta et tarn su bita m utatio? Im prae-
natufam stuitiora sibi, quae imitaretur, ehgit. Et quomam uidebat in certis
sentia q u a n tu m m ihi percipere d a tu r, si q u em q u am in m alam opinionem
animalibus officia manum feminarumque non esse diuisa, existimauit oportere etiam
m ente concipis, illam e pectore excutere non potes, et ueritati siquidem ,
45 mulieres militare, et consiliis publicis interesse, et magistratus gerere, et imperia
quod de L actantio plane percipi potest, aduersus co n tu m ax et inflexibilis
suscipere. Itaque his arma et equos assignauit: consequens erat ut lanam uiris et telam
factus es. N ullae persuasiones, nulla a rg u m en ta, nullae rationes quo
et infantium gestationes ipse consignaret. Nec uidit impossibiha esse quae diceret,
90 h unc u iru m tibi conciliatum habeas efficere q u e u n t? ”
ex eo quod adhuc in orbe terrae neque tarn stulta neque tarn uana ulla gens extitit
“ Q u o d m ihi das u ic io ,” ait turn C an d id u s, “ in te reicio, am antissim e
quae hoc modo uiueret.
N icolae, et quod m ihi obiectas, tibi plane ascribi posse periculum facio.
30 C u m N icolaus L actantii sui serm onem explesset, C a n d id u m qui inter
Sed me audias quaeso et rogo. R om ae apud sanctissim um papam Euge-
legendum inardescens se resp o n su ru m accinxerat quid co n tra loqui
nium q u a rtu m , qui pro singulari h u m an itate in ter gratissim os suos nos
uellet, n eq uaquam expectauit. A tqui statim suo ex m ore F irm ianum
95 am bos co n n u m erare dig n atu r, pro illustrissim o p rincipe nostro orator
sum m is laudibus coepit extollere, quern dicebat suauissim o oratoris cultu
ad eram . Ille m e his uerbis aliquando allocutus est: ‘S unt, C andide, qui
splendoreque u erb o ru m , C icerone sem p er et L iuio, qu o n iam prim os ha-
saepe et non n um ero pauci beneficia ex oraturi nos conueniant, instent
33 berent. exceptis ceteris facile excellere, ratio n ib u s q uoque et argum entis
uotis, polliceantur haec et ilia obsecrent, supplicent, /A 61v/ rem hones-
aduersus Platonem quae refelli m inim e possent m irum in m odum dispu-
tam exposcere se dicant, fam iliares nostros qui nobis intim iores sunt in
tantem insurrexisse. A tque C a n d id u m ipsum alloquens inquit:
100 dies et horas aduocatos et interpretes hab ean t, arg u m en tis rationibusque
“ H estern a die L actan tiu m quod p h ilosophorum sententias grauissi-
quae infringi /P 50v/ non posse p u tan t a b u ta n tu r. Solliciti quidem sunt
m as uerissim asque haud d uceret in lucem , sed ex in d u stria illas praeteri-
et insom nes, fratres nostros ad eu n t, lim ina obsident, in circuitu impii
00 ret adorsus es. Si uero e rra tu m m in im u m quasi m uscam aut pulicem
a m b u lan t, prim arios, quoquo m odo fieri posset, adulterantes. Q uando
apud illos offendisset, tunc u tpote m ilitem gloriosum dicebas in m edium
au tem nos abnuentes tergiuersantesque co n sp ican tu r, tunc inflexibiles
prodire, q u an tu sq u e in clipeum in su rg eret, quo tu rb in e to rqueret
105 in h u m an o s im placabiles, et, ut uerbis eorum lo q u am u r, d u rae ceruicis
hastam , sese iactab u n d u m osten tare. V e ru m en im u ero q u an d o ille Plato-
nos esse praedicant. V eru m cum illi ipsi quae ab honestate et ratione ora-
nem philosophum perillustrem , quern tanti /P 50r/ tu facis ut pluris ne-
nino a b h o rrean t efflagitare u id e a n tu r— sunt enim passionibus oppressi—
03 m inem in u ad it, A lexandri C am b u s illis egregiis assim ilis m ihi uisus est,
non nos quidem , ueru m ipsi potius im probi pertinaces im portuni durissi-
quippe qui non ceruos au t dam as, ceteru m leones d u m tax at au t elephan-
m ae ceruicis censendi s u n t.’ V ideto itaque, m i N icolae, quando me, ut
tos /A 61 r/ generosi ag g red ieb an tu r. V isu m ne tibi im p raesen tiaru m ,
HO ais, o b stin atu m in L actan tiu m arb itraris, ne o b stin atio r tu ille ipse sis,
C an d id e, L actan tiu m nostru m pro re pusilla in P latonem ipsum impe-
qui eum aduersus u eritatem obstrepentem censeas quo nescio iure defen-
turri faciat, quando ilium m ulieres et pueros com m unes esse oportere sua
70 Politia edocentem re d arg u at, accuset, dam net? E tenim si m atrim o n ia sum i n . ’’
“ C redisne, C a n d id e ,” inquit turn N icolaus, “ Platonis Politiam ab
nulla essent, ubi, quod statim au d iu isti, u irtu s castitatis, ubi coniugalis
L actan tio ipso uisam aliquando et intellectam esse?”
Fides et caritas indiuidua? H om ines passim et prom iscue b ru to ru m m ore
115 A it ille, “ Illam fortasse uidisse potuit, earn au tem intellexisse, quod ex
co p u laren tu r. T u n c p artu rie n tib u s fem inis n eq u aq u am pro u id eretu r.
uerbis eiusce plane elici potest, m inim e q u id e m .” “ N um de Aristotele
N egligeretur filiorum educatio. N on esset pietas p a re n tu m in filios, non
73 reu eren tia in parentes cum m u tu o nihil co gnoscerentur. N esciretur qui idem sentis et iudicas?”
T u rn C an d id u s: “ N on m e fugit hestern a die A ristotelis quam plurim as
fratres essent, quae sorores. N ulla cognatio, nulla affinitas, nulla fam ilia,
laudes habuisse, quern dicebam nobis caelitus d a tu m esse, cui n atu ra
nulla genesis essent. Et quid consequens est? N on essent qui aedificia
1-0 quicquid secretum peculiare occultum suis pen etralib u s ipsa possedisset,
m olirentur, sicque nullae ciuitates h a b e re n tu r, deinque nulla ars, nulla
quicquid ard u u m perexcelsum in au d itu m ipsa sciuisset potuissetque,
doetrina. nulla esset c ru d itio .”
exheredatis (P latonem sem per excipio) philosophis ceteris, im partire
oo S ubridebat ad haec u erb a turn C a n d id u s, quod an im ad u erten s Nico-
 600 P A R T II TE X TS 601

quidem ac com m unicare co n ata esset, quo si quid in ilia clausum et 1 (i5 u n u m quod aduersus P latonem inuehat seorsum accuses et dam nes; ip­
obstriisum in uenire nostrate m in e ru a et elicere ipsi n eq uirem us, ad sum uero A ristotelem qui fortioribus argum entis et ratio n ib u s eadem in
125 eiusce philosophi d iu in u m ing en iu m dociles ipsi confugerem us. H uiusce re P latonem sim ul et Socratem , amicos tuos, insectatur et m ordet, tu uel
doctrin a sum m e adm irabilis et eru d itio ab om n ibus post ilium philoso- ilium non insecteris et m ordeas. at uideo te hoc loco tem perantem
phis ita honori habita, ita credita atq u e suscepta est, ut saepius ‘Philoso- praestas. R ogatum te tam en uelim ut qu em ad m o d u m hactenus Lactan-
phus' quam ‘A ristoteles’ u b iq u e g en tiu m n o m in etu r, dictaque illius 170 tiu m , q uoad m ihi fieri potuit, in tutelam accepi, ita tu Platonem et
inuiolabilia p raed icen tu r. U n d e et p leriq u e am bigere uisi sunt scientiane Socratem pro tu a uirili parte defensitandos accipias. Scio pro tu a singu­
130 rerurp an scriptorum copia, an eloquendi su auitate an inuentionum lar! m odestia te A ristotelem ipsum , cuius nom ini et fam ae sem per assur-
acum ine an u arietate o p eru m clariorem p u ta re n t. /A 62r/ Ipse nos elo- gere consuesti, h a u d q u aq u am in u asu ru m . A bunde fuerit ut scutum
quentes efficere cupiens, p lu ra o rato riae o rn a m e n ta reliquit qu am ii qui d u m tax at teneas, iacula abiicias. Sciscitabantur am bo statim politiasne
sese fhetores ea tem pestate p ro fite b a n tu r. Itaq u e citius quis ei philoso- 175 eorum philosophorum haberem , illasque in m edium afferri iuberem ef-
phiam ad em erit qu am eloq u en tiam non concesserit. A iunt enim in Lyceo flagitabant. Ego autem qui illas liberas apud me tenebam , haud m inus
135 ante p ran d iu m d e a m b u lan tem occultissim a n a tu rae, quae ipse ‘acroam a- illos audiendi percupidus quam ipsi disceptandi in m edium ipsum at-
tica’ n u n c u p a b a t, explicasse, post p ra n d iu m m aiore diei parte oratoriam tuli. ’ ’
ipsartt elocutionisque praecep ta tradidisse. Iudicasse quoque philoso- N icolaus A ristotelicam e G reco in latinum paucis superioribus annis
phurri hom inem nisi eloquens esset, p aru m au t nihil ab eo differre, qui 180 ab L eonardo A retino uiro aetate /P 51 v/ nostra eruditissim o eloquentissi-
cum sese diuitem p ro fiteretu r, tam en uel his co m m unibus quae natu rae m oque trad u cta m accepit, C an d id u s autem qui platonicam G raecam uel
140 necessaria sunt h au d m ediocrem p a te re tu r inopiam . Itaq u e ipse mihi ipse latinam fecerat sum psit. N icolaus earn recludens quae Aristotelis
lacile persuadeo, /P 51 r/ im m o firm iter teneo et sentio, Platonis seu erat, ad ilium secundi libri locum quo de m ulierum facultatum que com-
Socratis Politiam A ristotelis in tu itu m et in tellectual atque notitiam ne- m unione aduersus Socratem et Platonem lo q u eb atu r uenit. Serm o illius
q u aq u am effugisse. H ie prae ceteris n a tu ra m reru m om nium scrutatus 185 hie erat: Nam fieri posset ut filii et uxores et res quae possidentur communes essent,
est, illi res publicas et h o m in u m m ores ingeniosius et diligentius digesse- quemadmodum in Platonis re publica. Ibi enim Socrates inquit oportere communes
145 ru n t, quibus com ponendis p raecip ien d isq u e nem o P latone iudicio meo esse filios et mulieres et facultates. V olebat lineatim N icolaus ipse om nia
ornatiu s, nem o distinctius, nem o n u m ero siu s sim ul et grauius locutus q u aecu n q u e ab A ristotele hac in re scripta erant lectitare, non iota, non
est, et usque adeo q u id em , ut si quis deu m fingat h u m a n a uti oratione, apicem u n u m praeterm ittere, uerum serm onis prolixitatem euadere
non p raestan tio re, non elegantiore dicendi genere ilium , si fas est dicere; 190 cupiens C an d id u s, rogabat ut de m ulierum filiorum que com m unione
uti potuisse. Q uis d u b itet P lato n em ipsum siue acum ine disserendi siue d u m tax at A ristotelis litteram attingeret, possessiones autem et facultates
150 eloquendi facilitate q u a d a m d iu in a et H o m erica fuisse praecipuum . ciuium om n iu m com m unes esse oportere quod Socrati obiicitur nequa-
M u ltu m enim su p ra prosam o ratio n em et q u am pedestrem G raeci uo- q u am legeret, sed arg u m en ta et rationes alio loco im pugnandas missas
cant surgit, ut m ihi non hom inis ingenio, ceterum delphico q u odam dei faceret.
oraculo instructus euasisse u id e a tu r. Q u id de S ocrate praeceptore suo? 195 “ T en eo /A 63r/ m anibus, inquit, ut cernitis, rem publicam Platonis
Is non m odo u irtu te p raed itu s ac u irtu s ipsa fuit, qui o m nium erudito- q u am ipse iam pridem latinam feci. Si illam om nem q u aq u e circum euol-
155 rum testim onio totiusque iudicio G raeciae cum p ru d e n tia et acum ine et uere et scrutari uoluerim us, n usquam inuenire fuerit possessiones cunctis
uenustate et subtilitate, turn uero elo q u en tia u arietate copia, q uam se ciuibus com m unes fieri statuisse, ut plane ex serm one quern paulo post
cum que in p artem dedisset, o m n iu m fuit facile princeps. H u iu s in ­ ex m e au d itu ri estis elicere poterim us. P utasti quidem L actantium
genium uariosque serm ones, cum ipse litteram nullam reliquisset, im- 200 tu u m de ipsa m ulierum com m unione aduersum P latonem dissertantem ,
m ortalitati scriptis suis Plato c o n se c ra u it.” si A ristotelem sim ilia sentientem illi p atro n u m et quasi scutum adiiceres,
160 “ Si quis au t p anegyrica au t p a lin o d ia ,” inquit turn N icolaus, “ edis- pro su m m a eiusce philosophi auctoritate facile defensum iri. At nihil, ut
cere concupierit, te u n u m d u m ta x a t, non ullum alium conueniat et aiu n t, et chim aera sunt, fratres. T e tam en im p raesentia lectionem in
audiat; satis et super extiterit, doctissim e C an d id e. V eru m de hoc alias. m ateria, ut coepisti, in stau ratu ru m percupidi hoc in consessu om nes ex-
N unc autem q u a n tu m ad in stitu tu m n o stru m /A 62v/ attin et, nequeo 205 p e c ta m u s.’’
non ad m irari cum A ristotelem quern fam iliarem habeas, L actantium Ille igitur ita prosequebatur: Habet praeterea quod dicitur nocumentum aliud.
 602 P A R T II TEXTS 603

Quod cnirn rnultorum commune est. in eo minima adhibetur diligentia. Nam de pro- minime / P 52 v/ dicere suum aut filiurn patrem aut patrem filiurn. Ut enim parum
priis maxima curant homines, de commumbus autern minus quantum singulis corn- ■j50 mellis multa in aqua diffusum insensibilem facit mixtionem, sic accidit com­
petit. Tamquam enirn alio curante ab aliis negliguntur, quemadmodum in seruilibus munitatem istam nequaquam necessanam in tali republica a nominibus extimantibus
Jin mimsterus famulantes, multi interdum detenus inseruiunt quarn pauci. Fiunt autern uel patrem ut filii < interest > uel filiurn ut patris uel fratres inuicem. Duo sunt
unicUique ciuium mille phi. et non ut singulorum, sed cuiusuis similiter est filius: quae faciunt curam habere, proprium scilicet et affectio, quorum neutrum sit in
qucire omnes similiter neglexent. Praeterea isto modo singuh suum dicent bene huiuscemodi republica. Insuper translatio ilia natorum ex agricolis et artificibus in
agentem aut male. quotuscumque continget numero. puta meus est aut illius, hoc 255 custodes, et ex his in illos, magnam continet difficultatem. Quemadmodum tandem
modo dicens de singulis ex mille uel ex quot ciuitas sit, et hoc dubitans. Nam incer- fiet et cognoscant necesse est dantes, et transferentes quibus quod dedant. Praeterea
213 turn cui contigerit genuisse fihum. et saluurn esse gemtum. Atqui utrum praestat sic et supenus dicta magis necessanum est euenire, puta rixas et plagas et amores et
dicerit suum. ita uocantes unumquemque duorum milium et decern milium, uel magis caedes. Nam non amphus appellant custodes fratres et filios et patres et matres qui
ut nunc in ciuitatibus suum /P 52r/ uocant: hie quidem filiurn suum. Me fratrem aliis ciuibus deduntur, et rursus qui ex custodibus aliis ciuibus, ut caueant tale ali-
eundem, ille nepotem aut per aliam quondam coniunctwnem ex consanguinitate uel 260 quid perpetrare propter consanguimtatem. De commumtate igitur natorum et
affinilate sui primum uel suorum. et praeterea alterum < sodalem>, alterum con- mulierum determinatum sit in hunc modum.
220 tribulerni1 Praestat emm esse propnurn nepotem quam illo modo filiurn. Quin immo C u m A ristotelis rationes et arg u m en ta aduersus P latonem et Socratem
nec uitan quidem potest, quin agnoscantur a quibusdam fratres et filii et patres et N icolaus nobis audientibus perlegisset, quid C an d id u s responsurus esset
matres. Nam per sirnihtudines /A 63v/ natorum ad parentes, necessanum est ut intenti u t au d irem u s om nes in ilium ora tenebam us. Is autern ita farier
fidem recipiant simul. quod tradunt senptores qui < bus > dam populis superioris 265 orsus, ‘‘ Grandes materias, patres am plissim i, ut ad H eliodorum scribit
Libyae euenire: habere emm muheres communes, filios tamen partiri inter se secun- H iero n y m u s noster, ingenia parua non sufferunt, et in ipso conatu ultra uires
225 darn sirnilitudines natorum. Sunt emm muheres quaedam et animalia, ceu equae et ausa succumbunt. Quantoque maius fuerit, quod dicendum est, tanto magis obruitur
boned quorum ea natura est. ut sirnilhmos genitonbus edant foetus, ut equa ilia apud qui rerum magnitudinem uerbis uoluerit explicare. Sed et quis super candentes
Pharsaham Iusta nuncupata. Praeterea huiuscemodi molestias non facile erit uitari prim as nudis et illaesis pertransierit? C o n stitu tu s sum patronus et tutor
ab his qui cam statuunt communitatem: puta plagas et neces partim uoluntarias, par- 270 (sic enim N icolao nostro collubuit) pro Platone et Socrate aduersus
tirn inuoluntanas rixas et iurgia. quae nefas est committere aduersus parentes et pro- A ristotelis insultus. V eru m quotus iam quisque ille fuerit, qui me non in-
220 pinquos magis quam aduersus extraneos. Sed frequentius ilia euenire necesse est, ubi crepationibus et m aledictis insectentur atque derisui h abeant, qui for-
ignorant quam ubi sciunt, et ea, si contingant, expian a scientibus debito modo pos- tasse a rro g a n te r et n im ium de m e sentiens philosophos eos aduersus
sunt, ab ignorantibus non possunt. Illud etiam absurdum quod, qui filios communes ilium defensitare praesum pserim , quern om n ia ingenia, om nes doctrinae
fecerunt, coire solum amantes uetuerunt, amare uero non uetuerunt, nec alios usus 275 et artes, singula q u aeque gym nasia, dociles atq u e doctissim i, quasi in
quos esse patn adfilios et fratri adJratrem omnium deformissimurn est, cum et amare terris n u m en caeleste q u oddam oraculis plenum , p ro seq u an tu r, ueneren-
22") solum absurdum, etiam non aliam ob causarn coitionem illorum uetuisse, nisi quia tu r, adorent? V eru m pertim esco ne Ism ael ille d icar, cuius m anus, ut ex
nirniti uoluptas inde sit prouentura, sed quia pater sit aut film s aut fratres ob earn sacris litteris notum est, /A 64v/ eran t co n tra om nes, m anus om nium
rern hihil putare referre. Videtur autern magis prodesse ut agricolis communes sint co n tra ilium , uideoque iam in me palliatorum tu rb a m quae undique me
mulieres et filii quarn custodibus. Minus enim erit amicitia si communes sint nati 280 carp at, laceret, m ordeat, m ortem intentet, iratu sq u e C hrem es tum ido
et mulieres. Enimuero tales sint quibus imperatur oportet, quo ipsi pareant impeno desaeuiet ore. V eru m Socrates dicere solebat idem esse uel eodem modo
240 nec res nouas in ciuitate moliantur. Penitus autern contra eueniat necessanum est ex se h ab ere u eritatem et iustitiam ; n eu tram enim infringi au t flecti posse.
huiuscemodi lege, quam quorum causa optimas leges esse oportet, et cuius gratia So­ P raeterea / P 53r/ philosophorum m endacium sem per odio habere
crates censet ita instituendum < e t> de natis et < d e> muheribus. Amicitiam emm u eritatem q u e diligere. E a ilia ig itu r fretus, q u ae, tam etsi persaepe
putatnus maximum esse bonum ciuitatibus, narn sic minime seditionibus agitabun- 285 u io letu r et in plateis co rru at, n u m q u am tam en ita stra n g u la tu r quom inus
tur. Et unam esse ciuitatem laudat maxime Socrates, quod et uidetur et ipse inquit eloqui ualeat, q uom inus anim osior uel ipsa resurgat, dicam igitu r quae
2 k4 esse amicitiae opus, ut in amatoriis sermonibus scimus dicentem Aristophantem prop­ de hisce philosophis ipse sentiam . Q u em ad m o d u m em m C icero perfec-
ter eximiam amanlium cupiditatem appheari simul, et ex duobus fieri unum. Hie tu m o rato rem fingere et declarare contendit, qui n u sq u am tunc (nisi ille
ergo necessanum est arnbos corruptos esse uel unum. At in ciuitatibus necesse est un u s ipse fortassis erat) h ab eb atu r, ita Socrates hac om ni Politia sua nihil
amicitiam injirrnam fluxamqueJieri propter huiuscemodi communitatem, /A 64r/ et 200 aliud qu icq u am disputat, nisi ut quam iustissim um hom inem ostendat,
 604 P A R T II T E X TS 605

et quae n usquam tunc erat, sed esse p o te ra t, quam sanctissim am rem p recab u n tu r. M e n tia tu r iam , ut assolet, Firimianus tuus et dicat: Platonis
publicam declaret et pingat. ista commumo nihil aliud habet praeter adulteria et hbidines\ obiiciat, vin qui
Sed a m ulierum com m u n io n e ex o rd iam u r. D icebat A ristoteles, ut sta- 335 multas mulieres habent, nihil aliud dici possunt quam luxuriosi et nepotes; dicat,
tim , Nicolae, ex te legente intellexi, fieri posse ut filii et uxores et res Quae a rnultis habentur prostitutae sint et meretnces necesse est. N onne huiusce
295 quae possidentur com m unes essent q u e m a d m o d u m in Platonis republi- uiri in P latonem et Socratem calum nias, mi N icolae, manif'estissimas
ca. Ibi enim Socrates in q u it o p o rtere com m unes esse filios et m ulieres et anim aduertis? O b strep at iam , ut assolet, g arriat, illatret ille sycophanta
facultates. A ristotelem au tem hac in re neque ig n o rare, neque som niare tuus L actantius et dicat, Quid hoc aliud est nisi ut ad eandem muherem multi
quidem certo scio, sed calum nias u tru m inspergat et serat, este, quoniam 340 uiri tanquam canes confluant, et is utique optineat qui uinbus uicent? (a) Plane
quae dixero au d itu ri estis, uos assistentes iudices, quaeso. V oluit Socra- ex his Socratis legibus, optim e Nicolae, uos quoque praestantissim i
300 tes, ut Plato scribit, ea in republica q u a m sanctissim am pingere co n atu r patres, percipere potestis L actantium ipsum non m odo delirare, /A 65v/
paucos quosdam , sed electissim os esse custodes seu senatores, qui uir- sed prorsus ignarum et inscium esse. Itaque ilium sua ilia dicacitate
tutibus, doctrinis et artib u s p raed iti, ex tra passiones om nes constituti, m ulta m entientem relinquam us.
suam ciuitatem iustissim e d irig eren t, excolerent, g u b ern aren t. Ex quibus 345 Ad A ristotelem autem , cuius auctoritas inter philosophantes nostrates
praecipuus unus et, si fieri posset, p rae ceteris excellentior, qui an n u m paene d iu in a est, serm onem conuertam us. Et enim si ab ictibus illius et
305 aetatis suae q u in q u ag esim u m p raeteriisset, in o m n iu m regem seu prin- percussionibus Platonem m eum et Socratem deiensitauero (pugil enim
cipem ab ipsis custodibus in teg errim u s d elig eretur probatissim usque. ” ualentissim us descendit in aciem ), nem o iam m ortalium tarn sui confi-
Et aperiens tunc C a n d id u s, quo m aio r sibi fides h ab eretu r, Platonis dentissim us extiterit, qui olim aduersus illos decertare et tela intorquere
Politiam ad eum quinti libri locum p arte n o n a d eu en it, ubi Socrates ita 350 praesu m erat. Legebas statim , Nicolae, ipsum A ristotelem hoc argum en-
loquebatur: Licet muhen a uigesimo ad quadragesimum annum parturire ciuitati, to uti: Fiunt autem unicuique ciuium millefilii et non ut singulorum, sed cuiusuis
310 uiro a tngesimo usque ad quartum et quinquagesimum. Et paulo post, Si quis ita- similiter est filius. Quare similiter omnis neglexent. Et alias eiusce philosophi
que his tumor aut senior communem generationem attingere ausus sit, neque iustum rationes ad eundem sensum com plurim as usque ad lectionis tuae calcem
neque aequum, sed flagitiosum /A 65r/ potius esse dicemus. ” Legebat dem um enarrab as. H oc loco / P 54r/ rogatos uos esse uelim , uiri doctissim i, quam
eadem parte sic, “Similis, inquam, consequetur lex. Si quis generantium non 355 pro am icis illis meis tutelam co m pararem , credo non inualidam , ex-
copulante pnncipe mulieri, quamquam uiro iam maturo se coniunxerit, nothum in- audiatis intellegatisque. N im iru m A ristotelis argum entationes ipsae
315 cesturti profanumque ciuitati haberi puerum. N u m q u id haec est confusio aduersus eos philosophos uere fierent, atque sua uota com plerent, fir-
generis h u m an i, ut L actan tiu s tuus o b lo q u itu r? Item liceat autem uiris m iterque concluderent, quan d o in ea ipsa quam depingunt republica
copulante principe, nisi filiae atq u e m atri flliarum que natis m atrisque ciuibus om nibus m ulieres om nes com m unes esse decreuissent. V erum
m aioribus, cuicum que com m isceri, m ulieribus item , nisi filio atque 360 cum om nino id a ueritate a b h o rre a t— nam de com m unione ilia inter
patri, tunc eorum inferioribus su p erio rib u sq u e coire. D ixerat enim So- custodes Socrates ipse d u m tax at intellexit— aut A ristoteles ipse com m u-
320 crates parte praecedente: Indiscrete cone, aut simile aliquidagere, nefas IP 53r/ nionem eiuscem odi (quod dictu credo nefas) ignorauit, aut si earn attigit,
foret ih ciuitate beatorurn, nec his principes annuerunt. U tru m n e hoc loco quod calu m n iato r quidem (si sine bello id dici potest) com pellandus est. Q ui
L actantius obiectat, Socrates docet ciu itatem esse concordem et m utui fieri nam que potest u t custodibus illis mille et supra sint filii, cum
am oris uinculis astrictam , si o m n iu m om nes fu erint et m ariti et patres 365 Socrates perpaucos illos esse censuerit? Et ad q u a rtu m eiusce Politiae ue-
et uxores et filii, lege h unc, lege ilium , scru tare, a n im ad u ertere, et cum niens, parte q u in ta, inu en it ubi ipse legislator ita lo q u eb atu r, Utrum in
325 identidem illos lectitaris, iteru m atq u e iteru m perlegas, oro mi Nicolae ea ciuitate plures fabros ferranos inesse putas, an uere huiuscemodi custodes?
et obSecro, tuncque pro u e rita te iudicium ferto. D icebat exinde Socrates R espondet G lauco, Plures fabros. S tatim que dicebat, Num ergo reliquorum
serm dnem hunc: Qui autem illo tempore nati erant, quo patres ac matres eorum quicunque sapientes eruditique dicuntur, hi erunt paucissimi?— Sane quidem.
generabant, fratres ac sorores appellabimus, ut ne mutuo se tangant. Solemnia igitur ’7 0 A tqui iam , uti arb itro r, quaesieris, N icolae, qu an d o custodes hi perpauci
quaedam legibus statuenda sunt, in quibus sponsos et sponsas congregabimus. Turn sunt, m ulieresne quidem et ipsae p au cae?”
330 sacra et hymm a poetis nostris statutis nuptiis fient condecentes. In singulis quippe “ U tique; nam id insequens e s t.’’(b)
connubiis sacerdotes, fem inae m aresq u e, u n iu ersa denique ciuitas “ Sed num com m unes custodibus om nibus locisue discretae? Accipe
aderit, ex bonisque m eliores ut n asc a n tu r, ex utilibus utiliores deos Socratem ; is eo libro q u into, parte septim a, hunc serm onem habet: Haec,
 606 j PA R T II
607
TEXTS

375 inquit, ut arbitror, priores reliquas consequetur lex. Mulieres huiuscemodi custodurn intellegebat, ceterum co m m uniter et un a cum uiro. At essetne fortasse
uirorqm esse communes, pueros item, nullamque ex his separatim habitare. C usto- qu id in a u d itu m istuc, ut aliquando m ulieres solae sine uiris exercitum
desne om nes libertate q u a d a m et prom iscu e ad q uam libuerit ceu /A 66r/ d u cerent? N onne T heseus cum H ercule, u ir m ag n an im u s, in A m azonas
canes co n flu en t?”
420 bellatu ru s, p riusquam bellum iniret ratus fem in aru m proelium neuti-
“ M inim e q u id e m .”
q u am esse co n tem nendum , bouem Phoebo im m o lau it, sicque A ntiopam
380 “ A udiuisti nunc n u p e r lege san citu m custodurn nem inem non (alii d icu n t H ippolitem ) captiuam duxit? N on n e ap u d V ergilium
copulante principe ulli m ulieri iungi d e b e re .” C am illae res praeclaras bello gestas lectitam us? E t pro T eu cris aduersus
“ A m ab u n tn e illas?
G raecos m ulieres se proeliis m iscuisse? Q u a n d o au tem A ristoteles ait ab-
“ A eque om nes. N on ad libidinem explendam (continentissim i enim , 425 surdum esse ex bestiis facere similitudinem, quod conueniat eadem exercere mulieres
im m o tem perantissim i sunt), ceteru m ad suscipiendam p ro le m .” quae uiri, sim ilitudo ipsa est quam aptissim a quidem .
883 “ U bi a u t < e m > q u e m a d m o d u m proles ipsa n u trie tu r educabiturque Q u a m ut clarius intellegam us exaudiendus est Socrates. Q u in to nam -
a g en itricen e?”
q ue P latonicae Politiae libro, parte secunda, hab et hec uerba: Feminas
“ M aud q u aq u am . Q u o d ut clarius in tu eare eiusce Socratis quae libro custodurn canum, utrum cum manbus una obseruare oporteat, IP 55r/ quemad-
eodem , parte octaua, h a b e n tu r u e rb a p ercu rram : Natos itaque, ait, huiusce­ 430 modum et ilh obseruant, simulque uenan aliaque uicissim facere, uel has potius tam-
modi suscipientes qui ab ipsis orientur, ut his postmodum praesint pnncipatibus siue quam inualidas domi commorari propter catulorum alimoniam atque partum, hos
390 ex urns siue exfeminis siue ex utrisquejuennt— communes enim ut praediximus uiris uero solos fatigari omnemque solertiam atque curam ad pecorum adhibere custodiam?
atque feminis erunt pnncipatus— ad nutnces quasdam in semota urbis parte degentes R esp o n d et G lauco: Communiter, inquit, omnia, nisi quod his ut fortioribus, illis
ueluti ad ouile quoddam deferemus. Quae detenorum partus, et si quid membris man- uero ut debilioribus uti consueuimus. C icero noster autem cuius auctoritati
cum / P 54v/ fuent, abscondant secreto ut decet contegentes loco. Verum, inquis, res- 435 sem per assurgim us fidem que m axim am im p a rtim u r, cum de elocutione
poncjet G lauco, si custodurn genus sincerum nobis debeat manere. ”
dissereret, dicebat: Similitudo est oratio traducens ad rem quanpiam aliquid ex
895 Tijim Nicolaus hoc Socratis au d ito serm one, “ N unc, C a n d id e ,” in­ re dispari simile; inuentio autem similium, a it, fa u lts ent. Si quis sibi omnes res
quit, “ plane percipio L actan tiu m n o stru m u n a cum A ristotele Platonis animatas et inanimatas, mutas et eloquentes, feras et mansuetas, celestes et terrestres
Politiiam et legisse et earn intellexisse q u id em . Ille P latonem ipsum , uti et maritimas, artificio natura casu comparatas, usitatas atque inusitatas, frequenter
exaudiuisti prius, castigabat his uerbis: A t homo sapiens contra morem HO ponere ante r .ulos potent, et ex his aliquam uenari similitudinem quae aut ornare
hominum contraque naturam stultiora sibi quae imitaretur elegit. Et quoniam aut docere aut apertiorem rem facere, aut ponere ante oculos possit, non enim res tota
400 uidebat in certis animalibus officia marium feminarumque non esse diuisa, existima- toti rei necesse est similis / A 67r/ sit, sed ad ipsum ad quod confertur similitudinem
uit oportere etiam mulieres militare, et consiliis publicis interesse, et magistratus habeat oportet. N on enim Socrates de latratu et can u m rabie, ceterum de
gerere et irnpena suscipere. H ie au tem uidelicet A ristoteles secundo suae illorum custodia ad custodes principes nostros simile q u oddam locutus
Politiae, parte tertia, nescio ne ilium m o rd eat; scio ilium his uerbis in- 445 est. N eque in euangelio ‘estote u en en o si’ sed prudentes ut serpentes, ‘estote
uadat: Absurdum est, in q u it, ex bestus facere similitudinem, quod conueniat eadem lu x u rio si’ sed simplices ut columbae D om inus dixit. D isputet nunc et
405 exerceje mulieres quae uin, ad quos ret domesticae cura nequaquam pertinet. ” co arg u at Socratem A ristoteles ex uoto; ego u ero Socratem ipsum
“ f a t e o r ,” inquit turn C a n d id u s, “ Socratem statuisse c o m m u n e < s > P lato n em C iceronem que diuinis laudibus dignissim os sem per obseruo.
uiris atque fem inis esse debere p rin cip atu s. At de custodurn m ulieribus
Sed alio diu ertam u s. Legebas enim quae secundi sui eran t parte secunda
d u m tax at, non de plebeis ipse lo q u e b a tu r, quas siquidem uirilis quodam - 450 eiusce A ristotelis hec uerba: Duo sunt quae faciunt curam habere, propnum
m odp et generosae u olebat esse n a tu ra e , et in stru en d as u t u iri /A 66v/ scilicet et affectio, quorum neutrum sit in huiuscemodi republica. Insuper translatio
410 ad rpusicam et gym nasticam et ad o p era bellica. Im m o ut A ugustinus ilia natorum ex agricolis et artificibus in custodes, et ex his in illos, magnam continet
duodeuicesim o De dei ciuitate, p arte n o n a, ait, Mos Athenis erat ut etiam difficultatem. Quemadmodum tandem fiet et cognoscant necesse est dantes, et
femirtae publicis consultationibus interessent, < e t > ad ferendum suffragium transferentes quibus quos dedant. Praeterea et supertus dicta magis necessanum est
gen eraren t tunc illae q uidem m agni an im i filios p rincipatu dignos. Idcir- 455 euenire, puta rixas et plagas et amores et caedes. Nam non amplius appellant custodes
co iqbet pueros custodurn ad bellum ta n q u a m spectatores ut assuescant
fratres et filios et patres et matres qui aliis ciuibus deduntur, et rursus qui ex
H5 deduci debere. Q uis dux in bello p raesen te prole et uxore non uiolentius
custodibus aliis ciuibus, ut caueant tale aliquid perpetrare propter consanguinitatem.
et anim osius pugnare conten d at? N on tam en solam m ulierem im perare
De communitate igitur natorum et mulierum determinatum sit in hunc modum.
 608 TE X T S 609
P A R T II

“ Paene, mi Nicolae, p ro p te r p ero b scu ram nec satis intellegibilem dereliq u e-/P 5 6 r/-ran t pro seq u eren tu r. N onne in tu e m u r puellos in
460 traductionem hanc, quid sibi uelit q u id u e sentiat suo illo serm one elo- religionibus u n u m q u em q u e m aiorem natu reu ereri, patrem que
queptissim us ipse A ristoteles eru d itissim u sque m ihi d iu in an d u m n o m in are, ipsi uero illos quasi surgentes nouas p lantulas confouere, a t­
uidetu r. N on enim A retinus noster in traducendis alienis /P 55v/ earn que illorum u n u m q u em q u e filium com pellare? C onnexio quidem spi-
i’e licitatem dicendi facilitatem que q u a m in p ropriis sui ingenii litteris ritus u n an im es apostolos et indissolubiles effecit, caro autem infirm a est
habtiit assecutus est. C icero u tin a m qui m agis est noster au t diuus citoque diffluit atque resoluitur. /A 68r/
465 H ieronym us P olitiam ipsam latin am fecissent. N on enim tam absconsam “ Q u a n d o autem A ristoteles, ut statim te legente au d iu im u s, dicebat
et inextricabilem , ceterum eloquentissim am clarissim am que tenerem us tran slatio n em illam n ato ru m ex agricolis et artificibus in custodes et ex
in rqanibus: ibi certo scio elegantiam , u t ita dixerim , au ream splen- his in illos m ag n am continere difficultatem , et reliqua quae sequuntur,
dorem que u erb o ru m in q uibus nulla p rorsus obscuritas, nullae latebrae intellegi plane d a tu r, nihil tam sane dictum , nihil tam rectum esse, quin
in u en iren tu r, et ad m iran tes legerem us et legentes a d m irarem u r. V erum n a rra n d o , ut com icus ait, possit d eprauier. V erum q uid in eiuscemodi
470 qu an tu m m ihi intellegere d a tu r, sentit q u id em A ristoteles ratiocinatur- tran slatio n e Socrates intellexerit au d ien d u m est. F ingit enim om nes e
que ubi filii et m ulieres ea in republica ciuibus om nibus com m unes es- te rra genitos tam q u am a m atre, auctore Deo. Ex ipsa terra quosdam , ait,
sent, ibi am orem paene nullum , n ullam illorum cu ram , diligentiam /A traxisse u irtu te m au ri, quosdam argenti, ferri, et aeris; principem uero
67v/ nullam erga illos inesse oportere. Quemadmodum enim, ut ait, parum secundum bonitatem u en aru m dignitates et officia et m agistratus
mellis multa in aqua diffusum, insensibilem facit mixtionem, ita am o r in filios d istrib u ere debere. Sed me legentem audite rogo. Eiusce haec ipsa sunt
475 et m ulieres totius ciuitatis d istrib u tu s atq u e digestus paene in nihilum de- u e rb a libro hoc q u arto , parte tertia. Si quis forte custodum nepos uilis oriretur
sunt. Fitque inde ut neglectui et incuriae om nes passim hab ean tu r. ad alios transferendum esse, sin uero ex aliis probus uirtuosusque nascetur, inter
P lanum , in q u am , id q uidem , N icolae, q u an d o o m n iu m ciuium om nes et custodes redigendum mdico. P arte autem decim a septim a [libri tertii] ita lo­
filii et m ulieres com m unes essent. V e ru m com m unionem earn tam q u itu r. Si quis custodum nepos subaeneus nascetur aut subferreus, nihil misereantur
am plpm Socrates, uti an tea exaudisti, n eq u aq u am intellexit, q u am ad aut indulgeant, uerum congruum naturae honorem tribuentes ad agricolas transmit-
480 custodes d u m ta x a t seu senatores ipse co n trax erat. Sed dices iam , si recte tant et opifices. T u rn , Si quispiam uicissim ex his subaureus aut subargenteus natus
coniicio, u tru m n e ad custodiam a m o r in filios et m ulieres eis com m unes ent, ad honores extollentes, hos quidem ad custodiam, illos ad tutelam deducant
dispersus m in o r et d im in u tio r qu asiq u e insensibilem faciens m ixtionem ciuitatis, tamquam oraculo mandatum sit, turn demum urbem esse penturam cum
extiterit, q u am si custodum quilibet ex propriis uxoribus proprios earn aes aut ferrum continget custodire. Q u id igitur sibi uult A ristoteles cum
susciperet et a m aret. V eru m id esse fatear, q u an d o custodes ipsi non ra- ex huiuscem odi tran slatio n e credit turbationes et difficultates sequi
485 none u iu eren t et u irtu te, ceterum potius q u e m ad m o d u m uulgus pro- debere? A n filios indignos uult honoribus inter custodes extollere, dignos
m iscuum et gregale sensibus et passionibus u ex aren tu r. At cum au tem in ter artifices occupare, neque illos transferre? Profecto m aior, si
uirtu tib u s praeclarissim is praediti sint, neque u ehem entiis ullis au t affec- id fieret, p ertu rb atio m aiorque sequeretur indignitas.
tibus ab ratione seorsum d istrahi seu inflecti possint, com m unes profecto Cum, ait, exinde huiuscemodi molestias non facile ent uitari ab his qui earn sta-
filios m aiore am ore qu am proprios in tim io req u e pro seq u eren tu r. In illis tuunt communitatem, puta plagas et neces partim uoluntanas et nxas et lurgia que
490 enim aliis, cum passionibus caeci p e rtra h a n tu r, p riu atu m bonum quod- nefas est committere aduersus parentes et propinquos magis quam aduersus extraneos.
dam inesse dom esticum et fam iliare inteilegim us. In his autem , quoniam F aten d u m siquidem ea ipsa u era esse quae ab A ristotele obiiciuntur,
bonuijn ipsum com m u n iu s eo ipso d iu in iu s est, haec itaque com m unio q u an d o de ciuibus Socrates ipse loqueretur. V eru m cum com m unionem
sem per ceteris p riu atis rebus a n te p o n e n d a iure ipso iudicabitur. Inde ipsam u t saepius dictum est inter custodes d u m ta x a t in stituat, quae
peregregie id d ictum a C icerone: Cari sunt parentes liberi propinquique plagae, q u ae rixae, quae neces /A 68v/ inter un an im es sum m eque Con­
495 familiqres, sed omnes omnium caritates patria una complexa est. N onne, mi cordes /P 56v/ uirosque sanctissim os accidere possunt? H onestius si­
N icolae, custodum ea ipsa com m unio, utpote patria q uaedam et res qu id em si non P latonem praeceptorem suum , at potius L ycurgum ipse
publica sanctissim e censenda est? A u d iu i aliquotiens R audensem An- A ristoteles esset insectatus. Ille enim tota ciuitate hanc legem tulit:
tonium hunc n o stru m dicentem plerosque om nes religionem suam in- licebat seniori uiro iunioris uxoris, si quern ex iu n io rib u s honestum ac
gressos se uidisse, qui om nes et singulos confratres ea ipsa religione Deo pro b u m diligeret p ro b aretq u e, ilium ad uxorem adducere, et ubi earn
500 m ilitantes ard en tio re studio et am ore q u am fratres aut filios quos saeculo generoso illius sem ine com plesset, suum ipsorum quod n atu m esset effi-
 610 P A R T II TE X TS 611

cerg. Licebat itidem probo uiro, qui fecundam aliquam pudicam que -,85 ba: Afferens autem agricola ad jorum aliquid eorum quae facit uel alius quispiam
m ujierem aiteri n u p tam a d m ira re tu r, m arito illius suadere ut cum ea artificum, si non in idem tempus ueniet cum indigentibus ea quae allata sunt per-
545 ipsq co ngrederetur, tam q u a m in solo fertili bonos filios satu ru s atque t'ac- mutare, uacabit ab opere suo inforo sedens. C ui respondet A deim antus: Nequa­
turus. N onne H orten siu s quasi eadem lege a C ato n e, q u oniam fecunda quam. Sed sint qui hoc uidentes se ipsos ad hoc statuant ministerium. D einde ait:
erac, M artiam inpetrauit? A tque de filiorum m ulieru m q u e com m unionc Agricolis ergo quam pluribus et ahis artifibus ciuitati nostrae ent opus, turn
iam satis. 590 ministris inuehentibus et euehentibus singula; ii autem sunt negotiatores; forum ergo
‘‘R eliquum nunc u id e b a tu r, q u o n iam Socrati ab A ristotele obiectum nobis et numisma permutationis causa ex hocjiet. Q u an d o igitur, ut dictum est,
550 est, quod legem tulisset o portere com m u n es esse filios et m ulieres et fa- possessiones com m unes essent, quid huiuscem odi cu ra negotiatoribus ar-
cultates, rationes quo q u e et a rg u m e n ta in ilium a p p a ra tu m ulto molitus tificibus et agricolis, quid foro et pecuniis et p erm u tatio n e opus esset?”
esset, tandem que deduxisset rem publicam de q ua Socrates locutus esset “ C allistratu s o rato r A thenis famosissimus fuit, quern cum De-
eas quas dixit continere difficultates et alias illis non m inores, ut de faculta- 595 m osthenes p u er causam O ropi agentem audiuisset, honorem que illi ex-
tibus ipsis possessionibusque co m m u n ib u s q u ip p iam d icerem us— verba h ib itu m inspexisset, ad eloquentiam turn prim um accensus est, Platonis-
555 haec, patres optim i, uidelicet possessiones inter ciues com m unes esse que discipulum sese statim , quod a plurim is non am b ig itu r, praebuit.
debere, q u an d o hanc q u am m anibus teneo P latonis seu Socratis Politiam T res igitu r eodem tem pore philosophos et oratores ipsos floruisse
om nem eu oluero— certo scio— n e q u a q u a m inuenero. Et quod nulla sit il­ m anifestum est. /A 69v/ Sed quorsum haec? Soleo equidem , uiri
lis facultatum com m unio ex eiusce Socratis serm one com pluribus locis 600 doctissim i, non ut transfuga, ceterum ut explorator persaepe in uestra
plane elici potest. Ait enim libro q u a rto , parte nona: Num principibus in castra tran sire. U bi cum librum quem piam uestrae prof'essionis
500 auitate causas nnpones ludicandas? Num quid igitur magis affectabunt quam ne superioribus diebus euoluerem , locum eum offendi quo de nundinis
quis ahcna occupet aut suis defraudetur? Si co m m u n ia essent om nia, quis ciuis ag eb atu r. Ibi eiusce C allistrati iuris consulti u erba, quae statim ex
posset aliena subripere aut bonis prop riis defraudari? V oluit enim ipse Socrate audiuistis, paene, ut ita dixerim , ad unguem hab eb an tu r. Sed ne
legislator in sua republica nihil p ra e te r in ter custodes urbis gubernatores 605 longius ab eam , co n trahendus est serm o, u n u m q u e d u m tax at, quoniam
essg com m une, quibus ut nihil pro p rii esse decreuit, sanctius uiuerent. causae q u a de a g itu r u id e tu r accom m odum , m inim e praetereu n d u m ex-
505 Libro autem qu in to , p arte duodecim a, aud ite, rogo, quae dixerit Socra­ istim aui. D icebat enim sic: Summae prudentiae et auctoritatis apud Graecos
tes uerba: Pnora igitur tandem confessi sumus; diximus enim neque domos illis Plato, cum institueret quemadmodum ciuitas bene ac beate h ab itari posset, im ­
propnas neque agros aut possessiones esse oportere. Verum /A 69r/ a reliquis ciuibus prim is istos negotiatores necessanos duxit, et reliqua quae inibi sequeban-
nutrimentum ut custodiae mercedem capientes communiter inter se omnia consumere, 610 tur. H oc eo m ihi facile persuadeo, prim o, uirum h unc, quoniam et doc-
si uen custodes esse debeant. A lim entis uero et his o m nibus quibus uita max- tissim us et sapientissim us esset, Digestis illis uestris inter iuris consultos
570 ime indiget ipsi et eo ru m d o n e n tu r pueri. Istaec com m unio, uiri doc- p raecip u u m / P 57v/ ad n u m erari et inscribi debuisse. D einde, quoniam
tissimi, regulae qu am d iuus Franciscus fratribus suis instituit u id etu r as- Platonis m entem inspexerat legem que ferentem ea tem pestate, ut coniec-
similis. Ait enim : fratres non a p p ro p rie n t sibi nec do m u m nec locum nec tari potest, a u d iu erat, quae quem adm odum ciuitas bene et beate
aliquam rem . V oluit enim ut p opulum /P 57r/ in D eum dirigerent, ad 615 hab itari posset edocebat, m erito et ipso iure eum auctoritatis sum m ae
uirtutes h o rta re n tu r, a uiciis au o caren t, stipem et eleem osynam a apud G raecos ipsos sum m aeque prudentiae scribit concelebratum esse.
575 ciuibus acciperent, nihil in pro p rio , ne in com m une quidem habentes. Si ergo ciuium om n iu m m ulieres om nes et facultates com m unes essent,
C eteru m quo ueru m fatear cum apostolo: In Christo omnia possidentes, quid quae Platonis p ru d e n tia dici, quae bene ac beate uiuendi lex ea tarn
aliud sensit co n tra Socrates? A udite ilium , quaeso; parte enim eiusce am pla com m unione fieri potuisset? Sed ii logi sunt ad uersantium et
libri undecim a inquit, Populus quo nomine principes esse dicet? R espondet 620 m erae n u gae. P raeterea haec quae dicta sunt, habesne aliud quicquam ,
Glauco: Saluatores et adiutores. S u b iu n g it Socrates: Quid ipsi popu- mi N icolae, quo fortius et uiolentius Platonem et Socratem aggrediare?”
580 lump R espondet G lauco: Mercedis datores ac nutntores. Si ergo populus T u rn N icolaus ea parte q ua prius Aristotelis hec u erb a lectitabat:
principibus custodiae m ercedem trib u it n u trim e n tu m q u e , quibus argu- ‘‘E n im u ero nec, si optim um sit unam quam m axim e esse ciuitatem, tamen
m entis d icen tu r o m nia esse com m unia? P raesertim ubi custodes ceteris id demonstran uidetur ex sermone, si omnes dicant suum et non suum— hoc enim
digniores gratis alim enta pro se filiisque a ciuibus accipiunt, per se autem '’25 Socrates putat signum esse ciuitatis perfectae et umtae. At enim uerburn “omnes”
nihil habeant? Ipse idem secundo suo, p arte undecim a, habet haec uer- duplex est. Si igitur tanquam singuli, Jorsan esset magis quod ejficere uult Socrates.
 612 P A R T II TE X T S 613

Singuli enim eundem filium suum dicerent, et mulierem eandem, et de facultatibus ‘‘His dictis, uti cernis, doctissim e Nicolae, p ro seq u itu r m ateriam
et de quibusuis aliis eodem modo. Nunc autem non ita dicunt /A 70r/ qui communi- 670 custodum tan tu m , eorum que com m unionem a ceteris ciuibus separat.
bus utuntur mulieribus et filiis, sed omnes quidem, at non ut singuli eorum. Quod Sed progrediare: uidebis sim ilitudinem iterari ab illo, quam m ulti,
630 igitur aberratio quaedam sit in uerbo “omnes” manifestum est. Nam et utraque et credentes < u t > de sua com m unione lo q u atu r, h au d intellegunt. ”
impana et paria dicet propter duplicitatem, et in sermonibus positum litigiosis facit Legebat tunc ille quae seq u eb an tu r haec uerba: “In ea igitur prae cunctis
syllogismos. Quare hoc ipsum ‘ ‘omnes ’ ’ dicere uno quidem modo bonum est, sed ne- ciuitate potissimum conclamabitur, uno ciuium bene aut male se habente, eius quod
quaqUam possibile, alio autem modo nihil consentaneum” 675 modo diximus uerbi uox, “Meum siquidem se bene habet”, uel, “Meum male. ”
“ Q uoniam fortasse lo n g iu s,” in q u it turn C an didus, “ disceptandi me- [...] Cum hoc, inquam, mandato atque uerbo communes uoluptates et dolores sequi
635 tas egressi sum us— h onestum n im iru m iam tan dem u id e re tu r— philoso- diximus. [... ] Eius itaque permaxime communicabunt ciues quod ‘ ‘meum ’ ’ nomina-
phorum ho ru m illustrium con certatio n em absoluerem us. Q u o d quo faci- bunt, ex quo dolons et uoluptatis commumcationem consequi necesse est. ”
lius fiat, P latonicam Politiam, quaeso, qu am m anibus teneo, ipse susci- “ C u m iam b is ,” ait turn C an d id u s, “ eandem de ciuitate ilia similitu-
pias, libroque quinto hoc, p arte decim a, quid Socrates adloquutus tute 680 dinem Socrates ponat, infert, si recte una tecum lineas percurro, mi
nobis audientibus legas. F u erit, certo scio, ut u eritas, quae m ultis seculis Nicolae, serm onem hunc: Num igitur horum occasione mulie-lP 58v/-rum pue-
640 pelago im m ersa et incognita latu it, iam coram superenatet ac luce clarius rorumque communio custodibus nostns erit utilisP Sed tertio iam earn ipsam , mi
dignoscatur ab o m n ib u s.” T u rn non difficilis N icolaus, sed perh u m an u s Nicolae, sim ilitudinem perlegas uelim . Ille autem ita loquebatur: Atqui
totus, librum eum accipiens, eiusce Socratis legebat haec uerba: “Habe- maximum ciuitatis bonum confessi sumus, quae optime habitaretur corpori ad
musne igitur quicquam in ciuitate deterius dicere quam quod earn diuidit et plures 685 suas partes quemadmodum et dolore et letitia se haberet /A 71 r/ comparantes.
pro una facit, aut bonum illo maius quod earn unit colligatque? [...] Voluptatis igi- Accipiens (c) his lectis e Nicolai m anibus lib ru m , C an d id u s aiebat,
645 tur dolonsque commumcatio potissimum dues omnes colligaret, si cum fierent eadem “ A udite, patres optim i, quaeso, q u em adm odum Socrates ciuitatem il­
ac perirent, gauderent panter dolerentque. [... ] Horum autem soluit partitio, cum lam ad suam accom m odet et coaptet. Illius u erb a sunt haec: Maximi igitur
quidam dolentes, gestientes uero reliqui / P 58r/ in eisdem ciuitatis casibus aut eorum bom causa nostrae ciuitati uisa est custodibus nostris mulierum puerorumque com-
quae in ciuitate sunt apparent. [... ] Id autem solet fieri quando non simul haec in 690 munio. Q uis iam tandem fuerit litteraru m tarn inscius, studiorum tarn ex-
ciuitate dicuntur uerba ‘ ‘meum ” et ‘ ‘non meum [... ] Idem et de alieno cum pers et exul, tarn denique b arb aru s qui auditis his non intellegat a Socra-
650 uicissim dicitur “meum” et “non meum”, illam optime regi constat, [...] et quam te ciuitatis sim ilitudinem poni, suam autem ab illo n eq u aq u am explicari?
proxime se uni habet homini, quemadmodum si digitus noster uspiam laesus sit, reli- P raesertim cum per ter sim ilitudinem eandem cum corporis eadem
qua corporis communio ad animam disposita, quae ad unum ordinem se habet in ea com paratione instau rare u id eatu r, sem perque su o ru m custodum in
principantis sensit, totaque simul patiente parte condoluit, sicque hominem digitum 695 fine m entionem faciat, et eos ciuitati ita constitutae contendat? Dicat
dicimus dolere. Eadem ratio de quocunque dolons, scilicet languente parte, uoluptatis iam A ristoteles quod et dicit: superfluum ergo q u id d am et com ptum et
655 gestiente. [...] Similis quoque illi quod /A 70v/ interrogas quae optime regitur se nouum et d u b itatiu u m om nes Socratis habent serm ones. Fatebor ipse
habet ciuitas: uno siquidem ex ciuibus bonum malumue patiente, ciuitas ipsa suum rem publicam nouam esse q u am tradit; fatebor item com ptissim um eum
potissime esse dicet quod patitur, et aut tnstabitur tota aut umuersa gaudebit. ” esse, eloquentissim um , et cuius serm onis cultum et o rn a tu m , non dicam
C an d id u s his auditis, “ S u n t,” in q u it, ‘‘h aud nulli quibus fortasse, ut 700 A ristoteles ipse aeq u are possit, ueru m , si pace u estra dici potest, ne at-
ex serm one suo elicitur, A ristoteles ad n u m e ra n d u s est, qui Socratem de tingere ilium quidem . V ideat exinde ipse ne rationibus uagis et exilibus
660 sua ciuitate loqui a rb itre n tu r, nec a d u e rtu n t sim ilitudinem ab illo posi- et argum entis n eq u aq u am necessariis passim in S ocratem scateat. Audi-
tam , ut probet q u an d o talis ciuitas rep e rire tu r, tota esset u n a — et quod uistis etiam genus dicendi suum . A pertum quidem ipsum est, clarum ,
insequens est, si custodes ita se h ab e b u n t, efficient se ipsos tanquam perspicuum , ut uel m ediocriter docti, quod de A ristotele dici non potest,
u nu m corpus. Sed quo clarius in tu eare Socratem per sim ilitudinem de 705 illud sine interprete, sine com m entariis plane intellegere q u e a n t.”
altera, non de sua ciuitate locutum esse, legas, oro, mi N icolae, quae in- N icolaus ru rsu m L actantii sui haec uerba legebat in tertio. “En Socratis
665 sequ itu r p artem . ” temponbus natum esse se Plato, homo sapiens, gratulatur. Videamus tamen quid il­
P fo seq u eb atu r ille itaque eiusce philosophi serm onem hunc: “ Tempus ium Socrates docuent. Qui cum totam physicam repudiasset, eo se contulit, ut de uir-
est igitur ad nostram reuerti ciuitatem, et que sermone confessi sumus, in ea con- tute atque officio quaereret. Itaque non dubito quin auditores suos iustitiae praeceptis
templari, si haec ipsa aut alia quaedam res publica magis habeat. ” 710 erudient. Docente igitur Socrate non fugit Platonem iustitiae uim in aequitate con-
 614 P A R T II T E X TS 615

sistere, siquidem omnes pari conditione nascuntur. Ergo nihil, inquit, priuati ac pro- 750 co n tra Io u in ian u m libro haec sunt, Scotorum natio uxores proprias non habet,
prii boni habeant, sed ut pares esse possint, quod lustitiae ratio desiderat, omnia in et quasi Platonis Politiam legent et Catonis sectetur exemplum, nulla apud eos con­
commune possideant. Ferri hoc potest quamdiu de pecunia d id uidetur. Quod ipsum iunx propria est, sed ut cuique libitum fuent pecudum more lasciuiunt. Q u a m ­
quant impossible sit, et quam iniustum, poteram multis rebus ostendere. Con- q u am cognitu m ihi facile u id eatu r, u tru m Plato rem publicam , quam
15 cedamus tamen ut possit fieri. Omnes /A 71 v/ enim sapientes erunt et pecuniam con- beatam Finxit, com m unione rerum apud ciues om nes constituta felicitare
temnent. Quo igitur ilium communitas ista perduxit? V ideo iam , C an d id e, quae 755 uoluerit, an non, custodibus tam en expedire p u tan s com m unia ilia esse,
/P 59r/ ad hoc sis ipse responsurus. Dices q uidem uti an tea dixisti, Lac- quae de pueris m ulieribus et facultatibus refert, p robare illud exemplo
tantiu m uidelicet neque Socratem neque P latonem intellexisse, quippe stu d u erit ciuitatis cuiuspiam , quae diuisum nihil prorsus haberet. T a-
qui non legem tam am plam ferant, ut o m n ia ciuitatis bona ciuium om- m etsi p rio ri sententiae consentanea m agis re p e ria n tu r ilia quae quarto
20 nium uelint esse co m m u n ia, u e ru m de custodibus d u m tax at ipsos loqui Policiae suae libro, parte tertia, ponit, haec inquiens, Si eruditi et moderati
quos nihil priuati ac p roprii boni h ab ere sta tu e ru n t, sed quo pares esse 760 fuerint, facillime ad rempublicam pertinentia quibunt iudicare, mulierum scilicet
possent, quod iustitiae ratio d esid erat, o m nia eos in com m une uirorumque conubia et procreationes filiorum, quae omnia ueten prouerbio amicorum
possessuros. A tque de L actantio hac in re iam satis et super. esse communia oportet, et in principio libri post illud haesitare uiderit, et
R eliquum nunc est ut d iu u m H ie ro n v m u m de P latone loquentem reliqua subdit, de m ulieribus scilicet ac pueris, q u em ad m o d u m constet,
25 audiam us. Q uern, si illi non ad u e rsu m esse docueris, hac plane de facul- haec om n ia am icorum esse com m unia. Nec illud refragari sententiae
tatum m ulierum p u e ro ru m q u e co m m u n io n e factum abs te m ihi satis 765 huic u id e tu r, quod ab illo sancitum , A ntoni, refers: non licere scilicet
ducam , tecum que in sen ten tiam sim ul accesserim . Scribit u ir ille sanctis- uiris indistinte coire, nec aliter q uam copulante principe, ac praeterea
sim us aduersus Io u in ian u m , quod te non fugit, lib ru m qu em p iam quo legibus esse solem nia quaedam in stituenda quibus congregatione nuben-
hec uerb a leguntur: Scotorum natio uxores propnas non habet, et quasi Platonis tium facta, poetae canant hym nos, et sacerdotes uirique ac mulieres
30 Politiam legent, et Catonis sectetur exemplum, nulla apud eos coniunx propria est, p re c e n tu r deos, ut ex bonis m eliores, ex utilibus utiliores nascantur.
sed Ut cuique libitum fuent, pecudum more lasciuiunt" 770 N am ideo p ertinet ut aetate non legitim a ac non perm isso tem pore coitus
“ Q u a m q u a m diuus ipse H iero n y m u s, mi N ico lae,” ait C andidus, in terdictus esse noscatur, non autem ut seruatis illis copulari m ares femi-
“ Scotos dicat proprias uxores non h ab ere, quasi Platonis Politiam lectita- n aeq u e u eten tu r, ita ut se sors obtulerit. A lioquin quid opus esset cauere
rint. non eo ipso tunc insequens est P lato n em ipsum tulisse legem aut So- diligenter ne deterrim is optim i m iscerentur? cum custodum genus ex ci-
35 cratem , q u a uellent totius ciuitatis m ulieres esse com m unes, uerum uibus selectum optim is miscere nullo pacto ignobilioribus illis posset, si
legetn earn H ieronym us noster, cum P latonem ob d o ctrin am eius grauis- 775 o m nibus p raeter custodes esset interdicta com m unio. Q u o d tam en ipse
sim am cultum que serm onis persaepe ten eret in m an ib u s, de custodibus cau en d u m sum m opere dicit eodem libro, parte octaua, quo loco ait, Con-
tantiim datam esse intellegebat, q u ib u s, ut saepius dictum est, nullae uenit, inquam, his quae diximus optimos optimis saepe miscere, uicissimque deter­
propriae h ab ean tu r uxores, sed com m u n es, nec tam en ita com m unes ut rimis coire deterrimos, et illorum quidem prolem alere, horum neutiquam, ut quam
40 sine iussu principis possent cuilibet passim com m isceri. Q u o d autem uir excellentissimum nobis sit armentum. Q u a siquidem sententia, si custodes
sanctissim us ita intellexerit, elici potest ex insequenti C atonis exemplo. "80 com plecti solum dixeris, iniuria eos afficies qui ex om ni ciuium m ultitu-
E tenim C ato uxorem p ro p riam non sem per p erpetuis et continentibus dine singulare sortiti n atu rae dotem h abitare sim ul, cum uiri mulieres-
annis M artiam h ab u it, neque co m m u n em u n q u am . Q u a n d o enim sua que iu b e n tu r ut u n a ciuitatem tu e a n tu r n a tu ra apti, sicut idem Plato
fuit, non H o rtensii fuit; q u an d o H o rten siu s earn h ab u it, non cum < eodem > libro, parte q u arta, ait, quern tu, A n thoni, licet accurate
45 C atbne com m unem h a b u it.” (d) scru tatu s sis, in m edium non profers, tam en q u a p arte L actanctium con-
785 fundere putas. N ic < o la u s > A rc i< m b o ld u s> . [A 65r, ad ped.)
(b) Ego prorsus, A nthoni, non intellego q u a deductione concludas
[M arginalia Nicolai A rcim boldi in cod. A m bros. adseruata]
perpaucos m ares fem inis coire non posse cum plurim is in ea praesertim
(a) Ferendus aequo anim o L actan tiu s est, sicut H ieronim o delirat tali ac ciuitate quae proli uiro ru m studens ex m ultis selectos quosdam praeficere
tanto uiro, qui G raecis non m inus q u am Latinis litteris eruditus, quid custodes q u aerit. Im m o uero tan tu m abest id u etari lege Platonis ut
Soc rates et Plato senserint non ex A ristotele m odo colligere, sed ex ipso eodem libro, parte octaua, scriptum esse noscatur: Optimis quoque adules-
Platonis ibnte haurire potuit. Eius enim u erb a quae h a b e n tu r secundo centium uel alibi egregie conspectis mulierum uberiorum potestas inpartienda est, ut
 616 P A R T II T E X TS 617

ea occasione simul quamplurimis ex ipsis pueri gignantur. T am etsi negari id reperire possunt quod ferientium non pateat telis. Q u an d o q u id em nihil
quoque non possit, P latonem ipsum q u a rto P olitiae, parte secunda, per- s:i5 aut p aru m referre u id etu r ciuitatem , ipsi suam in stitu an t quae rerum
missiSse ciu itatem , q u am bene in stitu ta m esse uoluit, ad n u m eru m usque com m unione lab atu r et fluctuet, an custodibus suis esse com m unia om ­
795 mille p u g n ato ru m augeri. A t uero si ciuitas, in q u it, ut a nobis praemissum est, nia uelint ciuitatis alicuius exem plo quae idcirco bene beateque uiuere
temperate coletur, permagna quidem erit, non aspectu solum loquor, uerum re ipsa censeatur, quod diuisim in ea ciues nihil om nino possideant. N on itaque
magnqm existentem, quamquam mille duntaxat pugnatores in ea sint. Itaq u e nihil Plato uictor euasit tam etsi R audensi illi non m odo scutum opposueris,
agis, A nthoni, tu a tibi responsione satisfaciens succinctus ac breuis ubi 840 sed arm a etiam , quibus A ristotelem L actan tiu m q u e confici posse spera-
res longiorem oratio n em exposcit. N ic < o la u s > A rci < im boldus > . [A bas, m inistraueris. N ic < o la u s > Arci < m boldus > . [A 71r, ad marg.
800 65v, ad ped. ] dext. ]
(c) M inim e m iror, A n th o n i, non u ereri te principem philosophorum (d) H oc d a re loquutus est H ieronym us ut nulla circuitione, nullo sit
A ristotelem m anifesta d a m n a re c alu m n ia, qui praeceptori suo facis ilium in terp rete opus. N am si Scoti in uxores pecudum m ore lasciuiunt, et hoc
im p u d en ter calum nias, quas ne co gitauit q uidem u n q u a m , in s e r < e r > e . ipsum quasi Politiam Platonis legerint, quo pacto dici potest H ierony-
Q uo d quidem sacrilegio p a r paene crim en est, turn p ro p ter sum m am eius 845 m um aliter quam u erb a sonant intellexisse? Itaq u e, uide, A nthoni, an
805 aucto ritatem et fidem , turn uel m axim e, q uod nihil subiciens eorum quae pars haec addita operi, postquam es a me certior factus de H ieronym i
Plato de custodum co m m u n io n e disseruit, eius m entem m agis q uam uer- dicto, te exoluat, an inuoluat m agis. N ic < o la u s > Arci < m boldus > .
ba contem platus, n egauit earn rem pub licam fieri posse felicem quae mu- fA 71 v, marg. sin.)
lieres pueros et facultates uel in p a rte ciuitatis uel in tota com m unes
haberet. Q u o d quidem negare si quis ausit, legat P oliticorum eius libro
810 secundo que secuntur: Videtur autem, in q u it, magis prodesse ut agricolis com­
1-2 titulus sic A P 6 ceterique ,4 11 quoque post Matrimonia Lad. Scilicet post debebunt
munes sint mulieres etfilii quam custodibus; minus enim erit amicitia si communes L ad. 11 Sed ... nisi om. Lad. 12 is] eis A 13 sapientes] patientes L ad. et] ut L ad.
sint nati et mulieres, enimuero tales quibus imperatur oportet, quo ipsi pareant im- 16 futuras f'uisse L ad. 20 uidendum est om. Lad. Ait enim] Sic inquit Lad. 21 omnes
peno nec res nouas in ciuitate molliantur. Et alio loco, Nam non amplius appel­ omnium L ad. 22 potest caritas transp. Lad. est certum transp. Lad. 23 una Lad. ]
unaa M SS ut alibi 26 sint Lad. filios] liberos Lad. tamquam] numquam P 28 modo]
lant, inquit, custodes fratres filios et patres et matres qui aliis ciuibus deduntur, et tantum Lad. Quid, quod L ad.} quidque M SS 29 non ante nisi Lad. 30 illi uni
815 rursus qui custodibus ex aliis ciuibus, qui ut caueant tale aliquid perpetrare propter Lad. ipsa post communitas Lad. 33 ammoueri P 34 semper Lad. 36 mulieres post
consanguinitatem. E nim u ero P latonis q u ae tu te, A nthoni, su p ra retulisti Item Lad. 38 sint P, L ad.] sunt A 40 matr. fac. transp. L ad. 41 geniales Lact.\
geminales A: gemales sic P 42 abigunt Lad. 43 imitaretur P ceteris Lad. 46 et
quaedam repetere non pigeat. N am < q u i n t o > libro, parte decim a et telam uiris Lad. 47 ipse consignaret om. Lad. 48 extiterit Lad. 51inardesceret
undecim a, P lato d escripta, sicut p u tas, alterius ciuitatis sim ilitudine P 54 primos scripsi] primas M SS 59 uerissimas om. A 66-67 elephantes A 80
suarn diffinire iam orsus ait, habemusne deterius aliquid in ciuitate dicere quam animaduertentes sic A 86 percipere mihi P 91 quae A 93 me] tui P 95 orator om. A
^ O ip s e / 3 121 -que] quod A 123 et P 132 ornamente A 149 siue pnus scripsi] sine
820 quod earn diuidit, et reliq u a ac paulo post, id autem solet fieri quando non simul M SS 173 haud quamquam P 187 lineatum P 195 r.p. Plat, trans. P 196omnemque
haec in ciuitate dicuntur uerbo “meum” et “non meum’’. Ac deinde pluribus P I98qu(a)e/1 211 ut cuiusuis quiuis Aret. 215 conterit A 216 suum Aret. ] suis M SS
eodem sensu congestis ad earn cuius occasione p lu rim a disseruerat custo­ 219 sodalem suppleui ex Aretino 223 quibusdam A ret. } quidam M SS 225equae Aret. }
equi M SS 226 quarum Aret. ] quorum M SS 227 Et praeterea Aret. huiusmodi
dum < d e > com m unione inferens, Haec, ait, maxime igitur arnica nostrae Aret. 228-229 partim inuoluntarias suppleui ex Aretino 231 a scientibus expian transp.
ciuitati uisa est custodibus nostris mulierum puerorumque communio. Q u am ita- Aret. 232 quod Aret.] quidem M SS 237 ut Aret. ] aut M SS communes] meliores A
825 que P lato co m m u n io n em in rep u b lica lau d at, earn sciens et prudens 241 huiusmodi Aret. 242 et Aret. ] om. M SS de post et Aret. ] om. M S S 246 duobus A,
Aret.} ducibus P 248 communem Aret. 250 mel Aret. 252 patris P, Aret.] patres A
Aristjoteles ait nulla ratio n e subsistere, siue iusserit in sua qu am effingere 253 homines curam habere et amare Aret. necesse est post sit Aret. 257 in his post magis
beatam studet esse o m n iu m o m n ia co m m u n ia (tam etsi custodibus id ex­ Aret. 259 tale caueant transp. Aret. 264 farier: uid. Verg. Aen. XI. 2 4 2 268 rerum om . ,
p edite m ulto m agis existim et), illorum ta n tu m m o d o com m unionem pro- rei post magnitudinem Hieronymus uoluerit] non potest Hieronymus 274 quae A 277
Verum] Videlicet P dicat P 281 delitigat Horat. 285 uidetur P 304 si om. A 309
secutus, siue custodum usui d eseru ire cun cta p u ta u e rit utillim um lore Licet mulieri] Mulierem inquit Decembrius 310 uirum Decembnus a trigesimo om. De-
830 ciuitati qu am bene b eateque u ic tu ra m in stitu erit, sim ilitudine cuiuspiam cembrius 312 esse| fore Decembrius 321 nec his Decembrius] hec iis M SS annumerant P
ciuitatis m u tu a ta quae o m n ia in com m u n e redigens m eum et tuum 324 anitnaduerteret P 327 erunt Decembrius ipsorum Decembrius 341 uosque A 350
praesumant P 351 cuius A 352 omnes post Quare A ret. , omnis om. .1, Aret. 358 con-
nefandissim a n o m in a fateretu r. tT a m q u a m igitur uelit p artem se Plato rluserunt P 365 ad] id P 369 certe post Sane Decembrius 370 Atque P 393 abscondat
uel (si m auis) Socrates u e ta t,f iure co p u lan tu r, nec tu tu m quicquam P 396 unaa A 399 mutaretur P 404 est M SS] etiam Aret. 405 exercere M SS ] cfficere
618 P A R T II

Arrt. quos .l/.Y.S'l C|uas Aret. noqu. cura rei dom. trnnsp. Arrt. 411 Athenis oral] enim A N T H O N IU S C A S S A R IN U S
tunc in eisdcrn locis Augustinus 412 intcrcssct M SS 414 generarentj oonuocautt Augus-
timis 41 7 unaa M SS 424 Aristotelis .4 429 unaa M SS 433 Committere .4 445.446
nr| sicut I'ulg. 150-458 lectwnes dissidentes ut supr.. /in. 252-261 455 non] num ,4 473 55. P raefationem A ntonii C assarini in librum qui A xiochus inscribitur
ergo P 494 -quo am. Cicero 500 urdentioros P 501 derelinquerat .4 Non A 511 a se L atine factum curau it R E S T A (1959), p. 252.
doprauan ,4 418 sin Decernbnus | si M SS 519 iudico scripsi] iudicio MSS: om. Decem-
hrui'i 520 quis ousuxlumj coruin Decernbnus 518, 520 nascatur ,4 541 abducere
P 552 -quo nm. .4 587-588 Adoimantus ... ipsos om. P 590 inuchementibus <4 597
C|uo| quod .4 600-601 nostra, uostrac] nostra, nostrac P 603-604 statim ... ad om. P
(ill ufstris| nostris P iuris scripsi] jure M SS 623 nor om. Aret. non ante tamen Aret. 56. P raefationem A ntonii C assarini in uersionem libri qui Erixias in ­
624 simul post omnos Arrt. suum| mciim Aret. rt sic cetera 625 sign uni esse om. Aret. et
om P 627 substantia ot post do Aret. 628 ot do. aliis om. Aret. 629 ut om. P eorum] scribitur P latoni falso a ttrib u ti curau it idem vir doctus, ibid., p. 253.
ipsoruim Aret. 631 dicunt. posita Aret. inepte laciunt Aret. inepte 642-643 Habemurne A
644-6-f5 igitur] inquatn Decembrius 647 cisdem maltm | hisdcrn AP. Decernbnus 653 sentit
A 656 simm om. . 1 (458 auditis his P 661 quaiulo] quo P 67 1 uidobirnus P 680 se P
683 Atquo .4 (494 oporationo .4 706 Sooratis] <uius l.actantius 7 10 prolatorem P 711
nascuntur om. P 711-712 ac proprii om. P 712 ratio] rem P 716 igitur] ergo Lactan- 57. A ntonii C assarini Isagogicon in Platonis u itam ac disciplinam
tius 725 aduorsus .1 729 ot Hteron. | om. M SS 730 legerit. sectetur Hier. ] -erint, -entur cu rau it idem vir doctus, ibid., pp. 258-262.
M SS 734 tulisso ipsum transp. P 759 habebantur P tta tamen P 776 loci M S 790
oadoni M S 810-811 communes Aret. ] meliores \ / S 832 uolie parte ut uid.

7 Conticuimus etc.: cl. Vergil. Aen. II. 1 If. 11-49 Lact. Inst. diu. 111.21-22 = PL
6:418-421 134-137 uid. Qumtil. Inst. 111.1: Loon. Aretim lita Aristotelis. ed. I. Duering,
pag. 17.5 147-149 (lie. Prut., cap. .31 149-1.53 Quintil. Inst. X.1.81 185-187 Arist.
Pol. II. 1. 1261 .i = Pol. latino interprote Leonardo Aretino, impr. Romae a. 1492, f.
27r 206-2() 1 Anst. Pol. II.8-4. 1261b-1262b = Aretmus. edn. cit.. 11. 29r-31v 245
Plato. Smp. 189C tb 265-268 S. Hier. Epist. LX = PL 22:589 277 uid. Gen. 16:12
280-2&1 uid. Horat. Ars poet., 94 309-315 Plat. Rep. L, 460E-461B = (interprete Decem-
brio) M S Ambros. 1.104 sup., 0. 103v-104r 320-321 ibid., 458D = MS cit., f.
102s 327-328 ibid.. 461D = MS cit., b 104r-v 328-330 ibid., 459E-460A - MS cit., f.
103r 334-336 Lact. Inst. diu. 111.22 = PL 6:419-420 339-340 ibid.. III.21 - PL
(4:418 351-352 Pol. II.3, 1261b = Aretinus. edn. cit.. 1. 29r 366-369 Rep. IV,
428E * MS cit.. I. 83r 374-376 ibid. V, 457D = MS cit.. f. lOlv 388-394 ibid., 460B-
C = MS cit.. 1. 103r-v 398-402 Lact. Inst. dm. III.22 = PL 6:419 411-412 Aug. Civ.
Dei XVIII.9 = PL 41:566 419-422 uid. Verg. Aen XI.661 422-424 uid. ibid.,
VI 1.803: XL 432 436-443 ps.-Cic. Rhet. ad Her. IV.59 445-446 Matt. 10:16
150-458 Arist. Pot. 11.4, 1262b = Aretinus, edn. cit., 1. 30r 494-495 De off. 1.57 51 1
Terent. Phorrn.. 697 517-519 Rep. IV. 423D = MS cit., 1. 79v 520-522 ibid.,
41.5C = MS cit.. 1. 74r 522-525 ibid. = MS cit., 1. 74v 539-543 Plutarch. Lvcurg. , circa
medium 559-561 Rep IV. 433E = MS cit.. f. 86v 566-569 ibid.. V. 464C = MS cit.,
t. 1061- 578-580 Rep. V. 463B - MS cit., 1'. 105r 585-591 ibid.. II. 371C-D = MS cit.,
If. 43\>-44r 594-598 Plutarch. I’it. Demosth.. cap. 3 607-609 Dig. 50.11.2, ed. Momm­
sen. p. 905. sententia iurisconsulto attributa Callistrato (s. Ill post natiu.
Christi) 623-633 .Arist. Pol. II.3, 1261 b = Aretinus. edn. cit., 1. 29r 642-657 Rep. V,
462B-E = MS cit., t'l. 104v-105r 666-668 ibid., 462E = MS cit., 1. I05r 673-678 ibid.,
463E-464A = MS cit., lb 105v-106r 681-685 ibid., 464B = MS cit., f. I06r 688-690
ibid. =» MS. cit.. b 106r 706-716 Inst. dm. III.20-21 = PL 6:417-418 729-731 Ada.
Ionian. II.7 (335) = PL 23:309 750-752 ibid. 759-762 Rep. 423E-424A 776-779 Rep.
459D = MS cit.. b 103r 790-792 ibid., 460B = MS cit., f. 103r 795-797 Rep. IV,
423.A = MS cit., t. 79r 810-816 Pol. II.3, 1262b = Aretinus, edn. cit., If. 29r-30r
 TEXTS 621

- qUid a fide d i s < s > o n u m contineret, si quid pias aures co rru m p eret, si
quid a do ctrin a sanctorum p a tru m om nino d eu iaret et alienum esset, si
G E O R G IU S T R A P E Z U N T IU S quid in eo v enenum lateat, si quid non ad cu lturam sed u tru m [sic] ad
interitu m seducat, ad n o tarem et sanctitati tue refferre tard u s non essem.
58. Praefationem T ra p e z u n tii in libros L atine redditos De legibus F ra n ­ P eroptans iussa tue sanctitatis adim plere pro posse, libellum semel bis et
cisco B arbaro et R epu b licae V en etae aeque inscriptos cu rau eru n t 10 ultra accurato anim o perlegi, ac etsi m ulta sunt reprehensione digna
'F ranciscus A D O R N O , in Studi in onore di Antonio Corsano, cit. supra, ‘q uam p lu rim a u e re ’, u t platonici aiu n t, aliqua tam en ad in u em que non
pp. 14-17; 2F. G A E T A , Bollettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo. solum ad n o tari d e b u e ru n t, verum nullius fidelis au t hom im s qui ratione
t. L X X X II, a. 1970, pp. 498-501; et -^Joannes M O N F A S A N I, in u iueret, etiam si alienus a fide esset, anim um subire debuisset. T itulus
Trapezuntiana, q. u ., pp. 198-203. De laudibus Platonis est et adversus G eorgium T rap ezo n tiu m editus.
15 V en en u m quod intus, ut ham us latet in escha, in his que conscripta sunt
inm ediate sequitur. N on eo ordine quo libellus editus est, sed lnterrupto
stilo venenum ac errores et m anifesta fals[s]a ab alns m inus sobne dictis
59. Praefationem eiusdem in ean d em uersionem N icolao papae Q uinto extraxi. (f. 1 r-v)
inscriptam cu rau it M O N F A S A N I, George of Trebizond, pp. 360-364.

titulus manu recention (saec. X V II, ut uid.) adiectus est folio priori, Nicola. Ortan. E p^ op.ad
Paulum II pont.ficem maximum Censura libelli edit, adversus Georg,urn TraP « ° ™ ^
cu, erat titulus ‘De laudibus Platonis’ 4 si add. s.s. manus eadem 7 vet a t c u l m
60. G eorgii T ra p e z u n tii ad n o tatio n es qu asd am in Platonis libros De del. 11 uera MS, sed uere uult auctor, ut credo, imilatione platonici idiomatis w? aXtittea.epov
legibus curauit Jo a n n e s M O N F A S A N I in Trapezuntiana, pp. 746-747.

61. Praefationem eiusdem in P arm en id em L atin u m cu rau eru n t

'R ay m u n d u s K L IB A N S K Y (1943), pp. 291-292 nec non 2Jo an n es
M O N F A S A N I, in Trapezuntiana, pp. 303-304.

62. Nicolai O rta n i praefatio in C e n su ra m a se scriptam libelli F erdinan-

di C o rdubensis co n tra T ra p e z u n tiu m , hactenus inedita. Q u am curaui
codice unico adh ib ito , a u to g rap h o ut u id e tu r, m onasterii M ontis Serrati,
no. 882, f. 2r.

C o n tra q u en d am venenosum et n ebulosum ch ristian u m , ad divum Pon-

tificem M ax im u m P au lu m II, m alleum o m n iu m h ereticorum , Nicolaus
O rta n u s episcopus fecit.

Pridie, beatissim e p ater, d u m ante pedes sanctitatis tue prostratus

essem, et que gesta sunt co n tra hereticos im pios apud C o n s t a n t i n o p o l i m
retulissem , iussit tu a sanctitas < m e > libellum cuiusdam docti viri ac
opinione apud hom ines non m ediocris diligenter p ercu r < r > ere. et m
 L A U R E N T IU S LIPPIUS C O LLEN SIS ANG ELU S P O L IT IA N U S

63. P raefationem L au ren tii C ollensis in u ersionem suam libri Platonis 64. P raefatio in uersionem Platonis libri qui C h arm id es inscribitur,
qui Io dicitur c u ra u e ru n t ‘G A R IN (1955), pp. 370-371 ex codice unico q u am cu rau i ex edit, principe Aldi anno 1498 im pressa, de q u a uid. in ­
Florentino Bibl. N at. C e n tr. M agi. Cl. V III 1443, et 2V E R D E , 4.1:93. fra, C a t. B, no. 12.

Ad P etru m M edicem v irum clarissim um L au ren tiu s Collensis. Angeli P olitiani ad m ag n an im u m L au ren tiu m M edicem P etri filium in
Q uom u n a in gynnasio cum A nto n io B enivennio iuvene ap prim e eru- Platonis C h arm id em e G raeco a se in L atin u m co nuersum praefatio.
dito atque D ando fam iliari nostro de p o e ta ru m furore disserem us, conti-
git ut quaed am de eo Platonis libro qui De Iliade inscrib itu r in m edium C u m saepe m ecum anim o rep u tarem , m ag n an im e L au ren ti M edices,
afferrem . T urn D an d u s illarum reru m d ig n itate adductus ut in L atinum et tam q u am ex alta quad am specula h u m an ae huius vitae conditionem
hoc opusculum facerem , qu am v is aliq u an d iu rem ard u am et m eis hum e- in tu erer, illud in prim is cum ad m irab ile m ihi turn m iseratione
ris im parem recusassem , im petravit. dignissim um uisum est, quod cum om nes hom ines p ari quidem studio ad
Q u am o b rem e G raeco, doctissim e atq u e invictissim e P etre, interpreta- felicitatem ipsam tam q u am ad p o rtu m aliquem tutissim um uiam affec-
tus tuo potissim um nom ini d edicaui. N am quom patris tui C osm i viri tent, adeo tam en pauci ta n ta praesertim tarn m u lto ru m inuestigatione
sapientissim i essem o b servantissim us, o ratio n em Isocratis L atin am fac- existerent qui ad earn adipiscendam recto u irtu tis itinere ingrederentur.
tam tam q u am prim itias et m earu m ex ercitatio n um p reludium destinavi; Sed cum et n a tu ra quidem ipsa ad felicitatis indagationem quosdam
quae quom ab illo pro sua h u m a n ita te p ro b a re tu r, m aiora anim o con- quasi igniculos nostris m entibus in seruerit, et (q u o d in Protagora Plato ait)
cepi, et hunc d ivinum nostri P latonis libellum tibi non solum divitiarum n em in em o m n iu m non in u itu m peccare sapientes arb itre n tu r, illud mihi
et am icitiae, sed etiam p a trita e et avitae virtutis successori, u t pignus profecto m axim e extare uisum est, om nem m alo ru m om nium causam ,
am oris erga te esset posteris fu tu ru m , devovi. Itaq u e hunc libellum , quae quidem h u m an o generi p lu rim a sane atq u e acerbissim a incubuerint
dign u m H om eri preco n iu m q u i sine furore ad fontes po etaru m negat ac- q u ib u sq u e u n iu ersa uita n o stra uelut tu rbulentissim is tem pestatibus hinc
cedere, studiose perlegas, et si q uid in hoc est quod a L atin itate exorbitet, atque illinc perpetuo iactetur, non tarn no stra nobis u o lu n tate quam illius
pro tuo iudicio ad R o m an i eloquii cu rricu lu m revocabis. in u en ien d ae difflcultate em anasse. H inc itaque effectum est, ut quae
hom ines singuli p er se ipsi nacti sint, ea q u id em m ordicus teneant,
alienis uero atq ue ad se m inim e p ertin en tib u s dies noctesque pro se quis-
6 hoc opusculum in marg. 8-9 interpretatus ex -tatum corr. 9 dedicaui] dicavi Gann 11 que anxie inhient, m ultoque qu am q u o ru m ipsi potiti sint p rio ra ea ac
pnmuiae Gann 14 patritae] paternae Gann pignus] pinguis Gann 18 eloqui Gann potiora esse a rb itre n tu r. A tque illi qu id em n a u ib u s, u t est apud Flaccum ,
atque quadrigis bene uiu ere petentes et, ta n q u a m in ter om nis generis
m arg aritas, preciosam u n am de q u a d iu in a sapientia locuta est in tene-
bris peruestigantes, cum neque pondere neque tactu neque item m agni-
tu d in e earn a ceteris discernere u alean t, con cu rsan t tem ere et rix an tu r in­
ter se atque infidis quib u sd am im aginibus allecti, d u m id quod indagatur
habere se am b ig u n t, neque om ittere quas Iegerint neque a quaerendi
labore obstinatis iam anim is desistere au d en t. N em pe uero hoc illud est
quod H o m eru s ille noster d iu in ae sapientiae q uasi q u id am O ceanus her-
bam q u am pcaXu uocat q u aq u e Ulysses a Ioue p er M ercu riu m accepta
quasi q u o d am antidoto co n tra C irces ueneficia usus sit, nigra quidem
radice ipsam , flore autem lacti q u am sim illim o uirisque m ortalibus in-
u en tu difficillim am esse dicit.
 624 P A R T II TE X TS 625

Q u a p ro p te r cum tantis sim us ignoran tiae tenebris p raepediti tantisque non p u ten t, atq u e in ipsum A cadem iae sacrarium refractis iam pudoris
idcirco laboribus ac periculis ex erceam u r, non m inus profecto nobis ac reu eren tiae claustris quasi canes in tem plum tem ere im pudenterque
qu am H om erico illi D iom edi et u u ln e re et sudore in conferta hostium irru m p a n t, operae pretium facturum me existim aui, si quern ego uel ab
acie laboranti, sapientissim ae P alladis, hoc est, sanctissim ae philosophiae ipsis inferis tan tae tem eritatis uindicem excitarem qui a u t interdicto cum
auxilium im plorandum est, qu ae et ipsa nobis om nem illam , quae nostris 80 leuiculis hisce abiectissim isque hom unculis contenderet au t ex iure m anu
nunc oculis obducta m ortales h eb etat uisus atque h u m id a circum caligat, consertum uocaret, quod in alienas (ut inquit C icero) possessiones tarn
nubem eripiat, ut (quod diuine idem H o m eru s cecinit) sit nobis lum ine tem ere irruissent. A tque ego quidem cum ad eum qui hoc prouinciae
pro m p tu m , p u rg ata iam in luce h o m in em spectare deum que. N isi enim susciperet p erq u iren d u m toto anim o et cogitadone co n u erterer, in ipsum
philosophiam ipsam totius uitae ducem et u irtutis (ut ille inquit) in- p ero p p o rtu n e incidi P latonem philosophorum o m nium sine controuersia
dagatricem atque expultricem u itio ru m assequam ur, quae im m ortalis 85 p aren tem ac d eum , totiusque sapientiae quasi q u o d d am (u t aiunt) ter-
dei m unere e caelo in terras ad reg en d u m g u b ern an d u m q u e hom inem restre oraculum . Q ui cum perdiu sane ut u id e b a tu r Latine sciendi
dem issa est, n u m q u am profecto nobis uel p u ra in luce refulgere uel auidissim us fuisset, libenter equidem ego hanc ab eo gratiam quam
preciosam illam m arg aritam nostro (ut aiunt) M arte eruere uel ab hum a- u idebam uelle iniui, eum que pauculis adm odum diebus quos apud me
nae huius uitae illecebris qu ae nos C ircaei poculi instar in feras bestias- sit d iuersatus L atinum serm onem edocui. Q uern quidem ille (quae sua
que co n u ertu n t, ullo pacto eu ad ere licebit. V erum enim uero ut non ex 90 est docilitas) ita sane auide celeriterque arrip u it, u t ad litem iam ipsam
om ni ligno ueteri p rouerbio M ercu riu s fingitur, ita profecto non cuiusuis philosophorum simiis intendendam om ni studio accingi uideretur. Q u a ­
natu rae est in tim a philosophiae ad y ta pen etrare. Q u i enim anim o p ro p te r cum te u n u m , m agnanim e L aurenti M edices, id quod uidere ali-
angusto sordidoque essent re ru m q u e hu m iliu m cupiditatibus m ancipato, q u an d o ille perq u am im pense cupiebat, ex u n iu ersa hom inum m ultitu-
eos Plato in eo quern De republica inscripsit libro a sacrosanctae dine existere intelligat qui et rem publicam sap ien ter geras et philoso-
philosophiae lim ine, ceu profanos quo sd am atque ad earn capessendam 95 phiam ipsam om nium bonarum artium parentem longo iam tem pore ex-
m inim e idoneos, non in iu ria ablegauit. H a u d enim q u aq u am fieri posse u lantem quasi postlim inio in patriam reuoces, nihil profecto antiquius
arb itratu s est, ut quern an im u m sordida ilia reru m ignobilium cu ra occu- h ab u it q u am u t e uestigio incredibili quodam anim i ardore m axim aque
pauerit, eo ipso h u m a n a ru m d iu in a ru m q u e rerum scientia com prehen- alacritate uisum te salutatum que tuaeque u irtu ti, q u oad eius fieri posset,
deretu r. Est enim P latonis eiusdem in Phaedone u era ilia et tibi L au ren ti g ratu latu m accurreret, te u n u m sibi tarn iusta in causa iudicem praeci-
certe non in au d ita uox p a r om n in o esse, u t qui ad sapientiae studium se 100 pue n u n cu p are t, tecum ut cum optim o A cadem iae patrono acceptas
conferant, prius quidem e m o ria n tu r an im u m q u e ipsum ab om ni corporis identidem a simiolis istis iniurias contum eliasque liberius expostularet,
sensu contagioneque a u e rta n t et quasi in suum ius suam que libertatem tecum de hac ipsa quam saepe dixim us tem p eran tia acutissim e disputaret
uindicent. Q u o d cum ita h ab eat, nihil profecto m inus sapientiae studioso et, quid de ea ipse sentiret, subtiliter prosequeretur. Q u a m quidem ille
consentaneum esse potest q u a m cibi potionisque ac foedioris etiam cor­ ab ipso statim disputationis exordio quasi q u an d am in delubri uestibulo
poris uoluptatis, uestis p ra e te rea et calceorum aliorum que huiusm odi 105 aeditim am collocat. H a u d enim om nino q u em q u am penitissim is illrs
n im ia appetitio et cu ra q u ae ipsius ta n tu m corporis cultui usuique nulla philosophiae m ysteriis initiandum censet, qui non ipsam prius tem peran-
anim i participatione su b m in istren t. Q u am o b rem cum ad philosophiam tiam sit consecutus. N eque uero id iniuria. U t enim agricola cum iam
ingredientibus p rim a nobis censorio quasi supercilio T e m p e ra n tia occur- stirpibus sentibusque agrum bene om nem p u rg arit, turn dem um semen-
rat, eadem que diligenti exam ine m u ltu m ac diu pensitatos ad recondita tern ipsam aggreditur, ita profecto hom ines d eb en t, cum iam om nem
usque sapientiae arcan a co m itetu r, n em ini profecto obscurum uideri 110 reru m so rdidarum cupiditatem atque in tem p eran tiam ex anim is porro
potest, ingens om nino q u id em atq u e exim ium m aiusque m ulto quam eiecerint caeterosque huiuscem odi affectus ferro atque igni uariaque
q u an tu m facile p raestare hom ines possint suscipere ac profiteri, eos qui disciplinarum m achinatione persecuti fuerint, turn d em u m purgatis iam
se philosophi nom ine, m ax im eq u e P latonici censere non erubescant. Ita- anim is uerae sapientiae sem ina excipere oportet, ut nulla pullulantium
que cum com plures id tem poris garrulos nugaces putidulos ineptos cu p id itatu m quasi spinarum conm ixtione suffocata ad ipsam beatitudinis
eosdem leues pusillos inuidos gloriosos au aritiae luxuriaeque iuxta addic- U5 frugem m atu re peru en ian t. A tque hoc est, scilicet cur prisci illi theologi
tos an im ad u erterem , qui hoc sanctissim um philosophi nom en illotis (ut H o m eru s O rp h eu s H esiodus Pythagoras item et hie ipse de quo agimus
ita dicam ) m anibus H a rp y ia ru m m o re attrectare et contam inare nelas Plato aliique quam p lu rim i M u saru m veraeque sapientiae antistites mul-
 626 P A R T II TE X T S 627

tiplicem illam totius philosophiae cognitionem p er q u aed am fabularum [Badii A dnotationes in Politiani praefationem ] A S C E N .
atque aen ig m atu m in u o lu cra in teg u m en taq u e tra d id e rin t, et quasi
120 saepibus q u ib u sd am cancellisque o b stru x erin t, ne religiosa quodam - Neminem omnium non inuitum peccare sapientes arbitrentur. H oc paradoxon
m odo E leu sin aru m d earu m m ysteria p ro fa n a re n tu r et quasi suibus (quod om nino C h ristian o dogm ati repugnat; dicit enim A ugustinus peccatum
dici solet) m arg aritae o b iiceren tu r. V erissim um enim est q u o d Pythago- usque adeo u o lu n tariu m ut, si uoluntas desit, peccatum non sit. Sed
ricus Lysis in epistola ad H ip p a rc h u m scribit: Q u i co rruptis obscoenis- philosophi respiciebant ad n atu ram in co rru p tam quae peccata abom ina-
que m otibus speculationes serm onesque d iuinos im m isceat nihil om nino tu r et uitat, C h ristian i ad corruptam in q ua (ut dicunt) sensualitas ra-
125 secus agere q u am si coenoso puteo p u rissim am in fu n d at aq u am quae et tionem sic o b ru it ut quod uitan d u m uelit. Instar, id est, ad m orem , cum
coenum co n tu rb et, et suam ipsius co n tam in et p u ritatem . Q u o d cum ita secundum V allam sit ad aequalitatem . Non ex omni hgno Mercurius jingitur.
sit, m agn an im e L au ren ti, dig n u m profecto te tu aq u e u irtu te ac sapienda H oc ad agium E rasm us de M ercurii statua ad m agiam accom m oda intel-
feceris, si d iu in u m h unc philosophum anim i u irtu tisq u e m agistrum ligit. S ententia nota est et in contextu exposita. Q u o autem ligno M ercu ­
tecum , id est, cum hom ine tem peratissim o de tem p e ra n tia d isp u tatu ru m rius fingendus erat, cum nobis fingendus non sit, p arui refert; ex Apuleii
130 praestan ti ilia tui uultus hilaritate atq u e exim ia q u ad am q u a tu insigniter facto u id etu r B uxum ad hoc m unus idoneum , forte quod Buxus sem per
excellis h u m a n ita te com iter benig n eq u e excipies, et quicq u id tibi uel u ireat et diu d u ret, aut C edrus quod cariem non sentiat. Vindicet. Q uasi
fam iliae cu ra uel am ico ru m negocia uel respublica trib u et ocii, id om ne uindiciis q u ib u sd am reuocent. Pnsci dh theologi. Ita quidem poetae ex-
ad illius praecep ta celeb ran d a tecum que recolenda potissim um conferes. istim ati sunt, sed quam m erito ipsorum m iratores u iderint, mihi certe
Si enim caelestis huius m usae cantibus aures m en tem q u e adhibueris, hoc tarn sancto nom ine u id en tu r indigni, quoniam Plinio auctore
135 n u m q u am profecto insidiosae illae nostri H o m eri S irenulae (quas tam en asserere deorum adulteria coniugia iurgia (quibus referti sunt poetarum
ipse ab ineunte iam aetate a tu a non m odo fam iliaritate, sed etiam con- libri) proxim e accedit ad dem entiam . N eque tam en infitias earn m ulta
gressu in hunc usque diem cana iam turn p ru d e n tia ad u ltaq u e u irtute esse ab illis etiam sancte dicta, m ulta ingeniose excogitata, nam quod
prohibuisti) n u m q u a m illae te blandissim is no xiorum c arm in u m irrita- scripsit H o ratiu s, dictae per carm ina sortes et uitae m onstrata uia est.
m entis illecebrisque seducent, sed ut P lato n em tan d em ipsum L atine U nde et nos in hym nis et canticis deum laudam us. N eque ignoro e
140 tecum de tem p eran tia d isp u tan tem atq u e h unc ra b u la ru m leuissim um poeticis figm entis posse aliquid etiam honestum elici, sed propensiores
gregem qui sacrosanctum Platonici philosophi nom en tarn profane sibi sum us ad libidinem et Iouis exem plum in grem ium D anaes descendentis
tam q u e im p u d en ter arro g an t pollutae religionis reum agentem eosque plures m ira n tu r qu am cum G igantibus pugnantis, m ultique m inus peie-
tu a quidem potissim um sententia, om n ib u s uero deinceps suffragiis rare u e re n tu r, quod ille periu ria ridet am an tu m . Sed caste dicit Politia-
dam natos p ro n u n cian tem audias. Age iam , p atro n e m i dulcissim e, nus prisci illi theologi, ut quibus u anum erat ante lucem surgere.
145 uacuas philosopho aures, in te n tu m q u e a n im u m , q u a n tu m in te est, pau- Eleusinarum dearum quae apud M acrobium in Saturnalibus g rau iter m inan-
lisper accom m oda. C u iu s tam en singula u e rb a A ngelum P o lidanum tu r m ystica sacra reuelare p aran ti. Est autem Eleusis regio in A ttica, aut
tu u m semel tibi iteru m q u e co m m en d an t. Euxuxet pouaayexa. A tticae uicina, sed nota cano. Sirenulae. Festiue dictum , nam d im inutiua
uox nescio quid blandim enti habet. S unt autem Sirenes blan-
dissim ae q u a ru m carm en m axim e attractiu u m est apud H om erum , ut
11-12 Plato, Prt. 327C ff. 21-22 Horatius, Epist. 1.11.29 30 Homerus, Od. X.305 agnoscere possum us ex hoc prim o apud C iceronem uersiculo: O decus
36-37 idem, It. V.114 ff. 57-61 Phd. 64C ff. 81-82 Cicero, De oral. 1.41 122-126 A rgolicum , qu in puppem flectis Ulysses. P er eas H iero n y m u s noster et
Epist. Pythag. Ill, ed. Hercher, p. 602
A ngelus Politianus hoc loco u id en tu r intelligere u o lu p tatu m illecebras,
H o ratiu s autem etiam desidiam , dicens, V itan d e est im proba Siren
D esidia. Euxu^et, id est, felix esto, seu bene fo rtunatus; pouaayexa, id est,
m u saru m dux, quo epitheto com pellatur apud M acro b iu m Apollo.

65. Badii Ascensii notulas in Charmiden a P olitiano L atin e red d itu m nec
non eiusdem in Politiani praefationem ad n o tationes cu rau i iuxta edit, 19 Horatius, .In 403 31-32 Cicero, Fin. V.49 34-35 Horatius. Serm. 11.3.14
anno 1519 Parisiis im pressam ; de q u a uid. infra C at. B, no. 35.
628 P A R T II TE X TS 629

[Badii A dnotationes in L atin as C h arm id is libri uersiones, Ficini scilicet Q u o d M arsilius sic: Im m o certe quoad in gen iu m spectat et pulcher­
et Politiani] A S C E N .1 rim us est et op tim us. Consobrinumque: perstat in tralatio n e, sicut M ar-
40 silius in sua, nam ita u ertit praesente te patruele eius atque tutore; uter
Veni equidem, etc. H oc Platonis opusculum de tem p eran tia, si quis autem m elius ipsi u id erin t. Accersi iubes: rectius q u am qui accersiri usur-
totum uidere cupit, P latonis opera a M arsilio Ficino trad u cta adeat. pant. Acquiessent, id est acquieuissent, nisi detrusi fuissent. M arsilius sic:
Equidem, id est, ego q u id em , q u ia ceteri A thenis iam eran t. Nudiustertius, Quo factum est ut eorum q ui utrim que sedebant n o u issim i, unum
id est, nunc tertius est dies; ergo hestern u m praecessit. M arsilius tam en surgere cogerem us, alterum hum i prostratum d eiicerem u s. Haesitare
H eri transtulit. Ex Potidaea. M arsilius praepositionem sustulit, q u a opus 45 supra cepi. H oc autem , Quiddam prae Hits ferens o quam ineuitabile? et illud
non erat cum sit loci p ro p riu m ; est autem duplex, altera in T h racia, inspexi et urebat, item Ipse enim mihi uidebat ab huiusmodi pecude expugnatus esse,
altera de qua hie (ut o pinor) lo q u itu r in M acedonia, C assan d raea dicta, et quae m edia sunt u erb a sustulit M arsilius, aut q u ia Socratis persona,
cuius D em osthenes saepe m em init. Sane Socrates non solum in philo- aut q u ia C h ristian i lectione indigna. In q ua re M arsilium laudo qui
sophia anim um exercuit, sed et corpus in bello. N am et X enophontem m aluit esse utilis q uam integer interpres.
ab equo in proelio circa D elon deiectum uiriliter suscipiens saluum red­
didit uicitque in nauali proelio ceteris fugientibus, et A lcibiadi uictoriam
conciliauit. Q u o d dico ne quis m ire tu r talem philosophum e bello recens 9-12 Diogenes Laertius 11.22
regressum introduci. N eque enim deceret dialogos non uerisim iles
fingere, qualis hie esset, si ta n tu m ethicae incubuisset Socrates. Statim
omnes eminus aliunde alius me salutare: supra ceperunt. M arsilius sic: Longe
congratulati sunt aliu n d e alius occurrentes. C u rrere supra cepit, aut
currere pro curreb at. Haud ita prius, etc. M arsilius sic: N am paulo ante-
quam abirem us, etc. Neque enim dum, id est, adhuc. Et cum dicto, id est,
cum id diceret. Aut pulchritudinis: hoc m agis e Platonis qu am e Socratis
stom acho u id etu r dictum ; Plato enim am atorios scripsit uersiculos,
Socrates m irae continentiae fam am m eruit. Meumque sobrinum, ergo
fratris et sororis filii sobrini sunt. Sed M arsilius: patrui filiu m et patrue-
lem uocat, u nde p u tem G raecis in ter p a tru u m et au u n cu lu m , sicut et
barbaris fere, nullum esse discrim en, aut alteru tru m oberrasse. Neque
enim malus, id est, ut dicit M arsilius, con tem n endus, hoc est form osus
erat. Commodum, id est, o p p o rtu n e, quasi in ipso puncto tem poris. Et mihi
quidem, o Socrate, nihil pensi. H oc M arsilius clarius explicat: Apud me
q uid em , o am ice, n u lla p erp en d en d i d iscernendique facultas, quod
dixi clarius, qu ia nihil pensi illis dici solet, qui o m n ia tem ere et sine
exam ine. Quod enim ad jormosos attinet, facile equidem alba sum regula carpen-
tarii, id est, nihil discerno, sicut am ussis au t linea alba in lapide au t ligno
aeque albo si p ro tra h a tu r, n ullum fecerit discrim en. Q uod ut explicaret
M arsilius inquit: Profecto p erin d e sum erga honesta in d ole claros ac
album filum in lap id e albo. In palaestra, scilicet T a u re i. Nae ille tibi: ita
scribendum est, ut sit nae, id est certe. Corporis facie, id est, effigie. Si
animum ad uirtutem haud ineptum habet. P ulchra ingressio ad de tem perantia
disputationem . Et hoc quoque ipso, id est, anim o; quam pulcherrimus, etc.

1 Lemmata Politiani litteris italicis, Ficini autem crassioribus indicata sunt.

 TE X T S 631

73. Pauli N iavis epistulam praeviam ad editionem a. 1490 Platonis

E p istu laru m versione Ficini (uid. C at. B, no. 6) edidit Paulus
M A R SILIU S FIC IN U S K R IS T E L L E R (1956), p. 173.

66. A rg u m en tu m M arsilii in libros decern Platonis C osm o M edici

dicatos curauit Paulus K R IS T E L L E R , in Suppl., q. u ., t. II, pp.
103-105 74. E iusdem epistulam praeviam ad editionem a. 1490 Platonis libri De
philosophia versione Ficini (uid. C at. B, no. 7) edidit idem
K R IS T E L L E R (1956), pp. 172-173.

67. Praefationem in libros om nes P latonis ad L au ren tiu m M edicem

prodiderunt pleraeque editiones Platonis operum om n iu m saeculo
decim o sexto im pressae (de quibus uid. C at. B, passim ) nec non in ilia 75. P raefationem M arsilii in libros Speusippi De delinitionibus et
editione T au rin en si op eru m Ficini phototypice im pressa a. 1959, t. II, Alcinoi D e d octrina Platonis habent quam plures editiones saec. X V I im ­
pp. 1128-1130. pressae (de quibus uid. C at. B, passim ) nec non ilia Ficini operum om ­
n iu m editio phototypice a. 1959 im p r., t. II, pp. 1945-1946.

68. V ita Platonis a M arsilio conscripta codicibus editionibusque

Platonis operum om n iu m p leru m q u e ad nexa in u en itu r ibid., t. I, pp. 76. P raefationem M arsilii in librum nom ine A xiochum a se X enocrati
763-770. adscriptum praeb en t itidem quam plures editiones saec. X V I (in C at. B
infra passim laudatae), nec non in Ficini operibus a. 1959 phototypice
im pressis, t. II, p. 1965.

69. M arsilii P raefatio ad lectores ap p aret plerum que in edit. Platonis

operum saec. X V I im pr. nec non in Suppl., t. II, p. 105.
77. Ioannis A delphi M ulingi praefatio in editionem suam Ficini libros
D e Christiana religione continentem , q u ae editio com plectitur etiam
lib ru m X enocratis D e m orte, eodem Ficino in terprete. Im pressa est
70. M arsilii T a b u la librorum P latonis itidem ap p aret pleru m q u e in edit, A rg en to rati anno 1507 (uid. infra, C at. B, no. 18).
saec. X V I nec non in Suppl., t. II, pp. 106-107.
M agniflcis uiris C h ristianae theologiae professoribus dom inis Ioanni
G eyler de K eyserberg et Iacobo W ynpfelingio A rgentine com m orantibus
Ioannes A delphus M ulingus seipsum com m endat.
71. Naldi N aldii versus de P latonis editione interprete Ficino ap p aren t D iu u m H iero n y m u m optauisse legim us u t L actantius noster Firm ia-
in Suppl., p. 107 nec non in locis illic citatis. 5 nus tan tu m nostra probasset q u a n tu m aliena destruxerat; gentilium
enim superstitiosam idolatriam et u an am religionem ita confundere et
ex term in are uisus est ut nescias u tru m d iu in io r au t eloquentior existat.
Itaq u e ubi finem et extrem am m an u m suis scriptis im posuit, accessit hie
72. D ocum enta ad p rim am Platonis editionem p ertin en tia c u rau eru n t noster M arsilius Ficinus F lorentinus Platonicae philosophiae strenuus
'E . N ESI, II diano della stampena di Ripoli, im pr. Florentiae a. 1903, p. 0 in stau rato r et suis lu cubrationibus, q u a ru m titulus est De religione Chris­
103 sqq.; et -Paulus K R IS T E L L E R in Suppl., t. II, pp. 108-109. tiana, hoc ipsum suscepit in quo L actan tiu m desiderabat H ieronym us.
 632 P A R T II TE X TS 633

Ego itaque m inim us d iscipulorum cupiens rem ch ristian am in dies augeri Ioannis Pici M iran d u lan i m agno cum labore h abita, pro com m uni T ici­
operam dedi ut eiusm odi p aene d iu in a m o n u m en ta p eru en ian t in lucem nensis nostrae A cadem iae utilitate ac orn am en to in lucem edere operae
quibus fidei pietas o m n ib u s ueris am ato rib u s innotesceret. Et uobis p retiu m me facturum censui, u n a cum serm one a m e p raesenti anno de
diuini uerbi sem inatoribus in prim is ascrib en d a d uxi, quos e aru m reru m dignitate ac ineffabili disciplinae naturalis utilitate h ab ito , ut plerisque
sem per cupidissim os cognoui, sperans non m inus uobis ciarissim is uiris discipulis nostris m orem geram quibus nihil possum denegare, praeser­
placere q u am si preciosissim am q u a n d a m m arg eritam obtulissem . T a n ta tim in re litteraria. Q u ae om nia, ne incerto rectore ac duce u ag aren tu r,
enim m aiestate singula fidei nostrae m ysteria praesertim p rim a et excellentiae tuae duxi dedicanda, siquidem te d ignior in hoc floren-
perinde difficiliora executus est u t cum acutissim is etiam scriptoribus tissim o gym nasio cui co n secrarentur occurrit m ihi nem o, qui aetatis
ecclesiasticis uen iat co m p aran d u s; Iu d aicam im prim is obstinacitatem nostrae decus, uirtutis exem plum , scientiae legalis th esaurus ac libera-
propriis scriptis eorum ap erte d e m o n stra t < u t > nihil in hoc G ypriano lium disciplinarum asylum nun cu p aris, ipse in arce stas bo n aru m littera-
C arth ag in en si posthab en d u s; M ah o m eticam quoque p rau itatem ita con- ru m , cum nos in prim o uix cliuo sudem us; tu gradatoris gradu arctam
futat u t nihil supra. A ccipite itaq u e alacres, uiri ornatissim i, christianae uirtu tis uiam conscendisti, nos te studineo ac form icino incessu con-
theosophiae clipeum ceterisque u t eu n d em sibi obiiciant et saepe ante scendere co n am u r, et ea est u irtu tu m tu aru m conditio ac m orum integri-
oculos p o n an t p ersu ad ere dig n em in i. C u iu s enim laus u estra tuba tas ut C hristianissim us F rancorum R ex, dux M ediolani inuictissim us, te
reso n au erit non m aiore ex clam atione indigebat. X en o cratem quoque De potissim um delegerit qui A cadem iae nostrae T icinensi praeesses, quo
m orte his ad d en d u m c u ra u i qu em q u id a m falso A xiochum Platonis in- factum fuit ut hoc tem pore nullum gym nasium nostro sit fortunatius: te
scripsere, personis d ialo g o ru m decepti. U t cum fidem rectam turn obser- enim g u b ern an te m ale uehi non poterim us, te clauum regente nulla pro-
u an tiam m a n d a to ru m eius integ re in uiolateque seruauim us, laeti leto cella, nullus tu rb o sit T icinensi cym bae pertim escendus. Q u o fit ut com-
app ro p in q u em u s. Et bene ualete. Ex A rgentoraco, Idus O ctobris anno m odissim e m ihi obuius factus sis cui iure ipso tales ellucubrationes
D om ini M D V II. d icaren tu r. C u piebam enim iam pridem aliquo honestiori obsequio beni-
uolentiam tuam dem ereri. Q u are m unusculum hoc cartaceum sane pu-
sillum hilari suscipias fronte, et susceptum tuo tueare patrocinio, quod
9 Marslius sic ed. 27 quidem ed. dii faxint perp etu u m sit m eae erga te obseruantiae m o n u m en tu m . Vale
4-5 Hieronymus, Epist. LVIII, 10 = PL 22: 585
saeculi nostri decus et splendor. D atum T icini tercentesim ae quartae
C h ristian ae O lym piados anno prim o, K alendas J a n u a rii.

78. Francisci T aegii philosophiam o rd in a ria m publice in gym nasio

T icinensi legentis praefatio in lib ru m (cui Graecorum sapientum uolumina 79. Badii Ascensii praefatio in librum ex aedibus suis editum , scil.
quaedam titulus est) M arsilii Ficini uersiones Speusippi ac X enocratis Platonis O p e ra om nia interprete Ficino, quae praefatio anno 1518
opusculorum co n tin en tem ; de quo libro P ap iae im presso a. D. 1516 uid. Parisiis p rim u m d a ta est; uid. infra, C at. B, no. 32.
infra, C at. B, no. 28.
Iodocus Badius Ascensius D om ino M ichaeli B odeto uiro m ortalium
M agnifico ac praestan tissim o iurisco n su lto rum praeexcellentissim o consensu optim o, consiliario regio prudentissim o, p ari F ranciae ac
Philippo D ecio, A cadem iae T icin en sis m o d eratori m eritissim o, dom ino L ingonensi episcopo dignissim o bene agere et laetari.
suo obseruantissim o F ranciscus T a e g iu s artiu m ac m edicinae doctor Q u a m q u a m , p ater m erito tuo laudatissim e, longe abhorreo ab im pu-
p erp etu am felicitatem . dentissim o hac fere tem pestate scribentium in stituto, qui taeterrim o op-
Socrates philosophus, m agnifice ac praestantissim e iurisperitorum tim i cuiusque praeiudicio sine delectu, absque iudicio, citraque om nem
nostrae tem pestatis m o n arch a, dicere consueuerat bonum q u an to m e­ ru b o rem infim os m ortalium et uix qui n o m in e n tu r dignos m anifestaria
lius, tanto com m unicabilius. Ideo cum iam d iu apud m e essent nonnulla et im potenti assentatione sum m is nom inibus extollunt, usque adeo ut uix
G raeco ru m sap ien tu m aureis sententiis m u n ita u olum ina ex bibliotheca ullam conspicias ab eis conscriptam paginam in q u a non septies ‘colen-
634 P A R T II TE X TS 635

dissim i’, "m etuendissim i', ‘reu eren d issim i’, et id genus L atinae linguae tur. Ex editione B ononiae anno 1521 im pressa de q u a uid. infra, C at.
priscis o b seruatoribus ignota m onstra inculcentur, quae res effecit ut re B, no. 36.
integra nem inem nunc pro m eritis laudare ualeas cunctis simile de o m ­
nibus p raeiudicantibus. Q u a m q u a m p raeterea me latet m inim e Lici- R euerendissim o in C hristo patri dom ino D om ino A egidio sanctae Ro-
nium F im briam u iru m consularem a sum m is auctoribus, M arco Tullio m an ae ecclesiae tituli s. M atthei presbytero cardinali dignissim o dom ino
C icerone in Ojjiciorurn tertio, et V alerio M axim o libro Antiquorum In- suo colendissim o hum illim us seruulus Iulius V alerian u s a bonis hom ini-
stitutorum septim o, im m ortali laude d o n atu m , quod a M arco Luctatio bus presb y ter Bononiensis sum m am b eatitudinem .
Pinthia, splendidissim o equite R o m an o , iudex aditus de sponsione quam 5 Ad m oralis philosophiae professionem in alm a stu d io ru m m atre hoc
is cum ad uersario, quod u ir bonus esset, fecerat, n u m q u am id iudicium anno ascitus q u a h u m an i generis actiones in Finem quaeq u e suam diri-
pronunciatione sua finire uoluerit, ne (inquit V alerius, cuius haec agno- g u n tu r cogitabam , antistes sapientissim e, quo pacto pro m unere m ihi in-
scis agnoscis uerba) aut p ro b atu m u iru m , si contra eum iudicasset, fam a iuncto possem praeclarissim ae disciplinae studiosis bene prodesse. M ulta
spoliaret, aut iuraret eum u iru m b o num esse, cum ea res innum erabili- m editato nihil antiquius uisum ad hoc nihilque conducibilius quam si ad
bus laudibus contin eatu r. 10 A cadem iam me conferrem , cui et te p lurim um sem per tribuisse sciebam ,
Q u a m q u a m inquam haec ita sunt, tam en com m unem m ortalium con- et q u am ap u d ueteres prudentiae atque sapientiae studiosos m axim o in
sensum secutus et a u riu m o culorum que iudicio inductus (nam quae cultu h ab itam agnoscebam , C hristianaeque d o ctrinae im prim is con-
audiuim us uidim usque testam ur) nihil sum ueritus te u irum optim um form em , genus p raeterea philosophandi m inim e arro g an s m axim eque
pronunciare. Ita enim a teneris unguiculis instituisti u itam , ita in con- sibi constans secutam , et quae quid uerum esset a u t m axim e ueri simile
sulatu regio, ita in episcopatu uixisti et uiuis— u tque diu uiuas opta- 15 u id e re tu r in u tra m q u e partem disserendo praecipue noscere atque ex-
m us— ut eo nom ine dignissim us extra om nem aleam com proberis, usque prim ere lab o rau erit, ac sequens quidem p ro babiliora nihil unquam
eo, ut si priscorum consuetudinem sectari uelim qui o p tim u m ac m axi­ tem ere affirm auerit, certam que sententiam atque decretoriam suspen-
m um quem que in suo genere ‘d e u m ’ n u n c u p a b an t, te m erito et uirorum dens indag an d ae ueritatis (ut inquit Cicero) sem per locum reliquerit,
et consiliariorum et episcoporum et eorum quos nunc pares Franciae, sinceram atque ind u b itatam ueritatem nulli m o rtaliu m sed soli Deo aut
olim regulos G alliarum ap pellabant, deum com pellauero. Q uocirca cum 20 cui deus reuelare uoluerit patere arb itrata. H oc honestissim um atque
opera Platonis quern philosophorum D eum p raedicant om nes et qui unus u erecundissim u m philosophandi genus com plures secutos Plato om nes
A ntim acho poetae in star o m nium erat, a M arsilio Ficino tralata et para- supergressus censetur turn G raecorum turn L atin o ru m iudicio qui super
phrasi egregia illustrata praelo nostro iam iam em itten d a, nullium uiuen- hoc iudicare p o tu eru n t. H u n c C icero m odo D eu m , m odo H o m eru m phi­
tium tarn uisa sint expetere ac tu u m , praesul dignissim e, quo tu e a n tu r losophorum n u n cu p at, quod approbans A ugustinus noster, M erito, in-
praesidium , ne istud eis deneges m aiorem in m odum iterum atque 25 q u it, C icero D eum in ter philosophos Platonem uocat, qui cunctos philo-
iterum precam ur. sophos et ingenio et sapientia superauit. P raetereo Q u in tilian i Plinii alio-
V ale. E chalcografia nostra ad q u in tu m C alendas Iunias anno ab re- ru m q u e n o stro ru m eulogia, unius G raeci testim onio satisfacturus Aristo-
dem ptione h u m a n a M D X V III. telis, scilicet eius discipuli, qui in elegiis ad E u d em u m de laudibus pre-
ceptoris sui Platonis conscribens, cum m u lta de u ita deque ipsius doc-
30 trin a, q u am supra uiginti annos auscu ltau erat, disseruisset, uersum
14 consulatem ed. 40 Et rursus ad Idus Septembris MDXXII add. ed. altera tan d em ilium protulit, G raece quidem , sed huius sententiae:

13-15 Cicero, Off. III. 19.77, ed. Atzert, p. 108 16-22 Valerius Maximus VII.4, ed. nulla ferent talem saecla futura uirum.
Kempt', p. 593 33 Cicero, Brut. 51
H aec cum p rioribus ac priscis seculis m inim e o b scura essent, Plato a sa­
pientiae sectatoribus in m anibus et ore prae cunctis h ab eb atu r, post-
35 habito ipso A ristotele, quern in m ultis et m axim is non m odo contra
philosophiam , u erum etiam contra gentium consensum et m ores sensisse
BO. lulii V aleriani epistula in tro d u cto ria ad editionem Ficinianae inter- et scripsisse agnoscerent, et dum praeceptoris d o ctrinam im pugnare
pretationis Platonis librorum qui A lcibiades m aior m in o rq u e intitulan- n ititu r ideasque m alignus irridere, quas ille in m ente diu in a tam quam
636 P A R T II TE X TS 637

rerum producendarum exemplaria posuit, in perniciosissimos errores M icrocosmus, a caeteris sapientibus etiam imago m undi, Dei similitudo,
incurrisse uiderent multosque secum traxisse— sicut et quotidie trahit_ Sectum uniuersi— , cum in hominis contemplatione tamquam in parua
dum mundum, scilicet non a deo productum, ut Plato in Timaeo disputat, tabella, immo ut in speculo patentissimo, uniuersorum notitiae relu-
sed ab aeterno extitisse, Deum que ipsum extra se nihil intelligere, nec ceant, merito iubemur rerum quarumeunque naturam indagaturi a nos-
libere sed necessario causare omnia secundum fatum fieri, cum intelli- 85 tri cognitione incoare, utpote quae omni aliae cognitioni ianuam aperiat
gentiae mouentes orbes sint causae om nium necessariae. Ex cuius doc- aditumque familiarissime patefaciat. Nam si a communioribus et notiori-
trina sequitur, Deum rerum humanarum neque habere prouidentiam bus nobis est iniciandum, quid hominis notitia com m unius, quae uniuer-
neque curam, nullos esse daem ones neque inferos, animum quoque uel sitatem rerum et cognitionem nexu mirifico complectitur? Quid etiam
mortalem esse uel transire de corpore in corpus uel unicum esse intellec­ quodam m odo notius, cum non longe nec extrinsecus talis sit quaerenda
tual; propterea nullam sperari debere post mortem gloriam seu beati- 90 scientia? Quae prior et propior est apud nos est, immo intra nos, non per
tudinem, non poenam neque supplicia, stulte dei cultum haberi, uane testes extrinsecus petenda, sed nobiscum semper habetur intimoque
templa et religiones constitui, fatue leges ferri et disci, immerito poenas sensu quodam m odo tangitur. Quod cum non latuisset, illustres quosque
nocentibus irrogari aut bonis praemia conferri. Quae quidem et huius- tarn nostrates quam ethnicos admonere inclamare scribere et praedicare
modi, si quis apud ethnicos non modo in publicis gymnasiis (ut apud nos non cessarunt sui prae cunctis habendam notitiam. Ad Eugenium pon-
fit) uerum in popinis luisset ausus eff'ari, e ciuili commercio furore popu- 95 tificem m aximum scribens facundus Bernardus, Noueris licet, inquit,
lari luisset eiectus. Q uod et ipse Aristoteles impietatis quandoque accusa- uniuersa mysteria, omnia lata terrae, profunda maris, alta coeli, si teip-
tus formidans uel etiam grauiora timens clam Athenis aufugisse legitur. sum nesciueris, similis eris uiro aedificanti absque lundam ento, ruinam
Sed ad rem et Academ iam , Lyceum deserens. reuertor. Ex qua cum non structuram faciens. Ugo uero sacerdos et doctrina et authoritate
nihil simile emergere deprehendatur, pauca a Christiano dogmate ad- clarus ad theologiae et sacrae scripturae penetralia festinantes, Frustra,
modum dissona sequi, ego quidem ut nostrorum mirans negligentiam, 100 inquit, erigit oculum ad uidendum deum, qui nondum idoneus est ad
ne dicam impietatem, ita ueterum instituta suspicienda atque repetenda uidendum seipsum. Prius enim est ut cognoscas inuisibilia spiritus tui,
ratus, Academiam ipsam praecipue adeundam existim aui, et moralis quam possis esse idoneus ad cognoscendum inuisibilia dei, et si non potes
philosophiae lores studiosis auscultatoribus pro uirili mea patefacturus, te cognoscere, non praesumas apprehendere quae supra te sunt. Praeci-
Platonem Academiae principem potissimum petendum eiusque prae puum et principale spectaculum ad uidendum deum est animus rationa-
cunctis primum Alcibiadem praelegendum , admonitus turn Graecorum 105 lis inueniens seipsum. Melius est si teipsum cognoueris quam si her-
turn Latinorum m onum entis iubentibus naturae humanae cognitionem barum uires te neglecto et complexiones hominum naturas animalium
tamquam ianuam et omnis eruditionis lundam entum quamcumque siue caelestium et terrestrium scientiam habueris. M ulti multa sciunt et seip-
moralem siue naturalem disciplinam debere precedere. Nec ab re qui­ sos nesciunt, cum tamen cognitio sui summa sit philosophia. Non diuer-
dem. Si enim , ut Paulus apostolus adm onet, quaecumque scripta sunt ad sa ab his aurei eloquii Chrysostomus protulit: Est primum, inquit, homi-
nostram doctrinam scripta sunt, debet prius innotescere quid sit illud 110 nis sapientiam affectantis contemplari quid ipse sit. Lactantius uero post
propter quod tot ac tanta scripta factaque sunt. Cum uel teste ad hoc M arcum Tullium eloquentissimus: Haec, ait, omnis prauitatis est causa,
Aristotele, homo sit finis quodam m odo om nium , atque finis, ut idem ignoratio sui, quam si quis cognita ueritate discusserit, sciet quo referen­
asserit, est causa causarum, quo ignorato nihil recte intelligi aut fieri da et quom odo uita degenda sit. At Boethius uel potius Philosophia apud
posse uidetur, cum finis habeat rationem ultimi in executione et primi Boethium seuere concludit humanae naturae hanc esse conditionem, ut
in intentione, propter quern omne agens ad operandum mouetur atque 115 turn tantum caeteris rebus cum se cognoscit excellat, eadem tamen infra
dirigitur, cum ex fine sequatur ratio eorum quae sunt ad finem, ad quern bestias redigatur, si se nosse desierit.
cum omnes nostrae actiones sint dirigendae non secus quam cursus in Sed longum nimis fecerim, si nostrorum om nium dicta et monita ad
stadio currentis ad brabeum et sagittarii sagitta ad scopon et signum hoc referre uelim. Praetereo igitur Augustini Basiliii H ieronvm i Gregorii
dirigenda, necessario hie finis om nium primus et praecipuus praenoscen- Niceni Anselmi et Classici, cuiusque denique ex nostratibus quos haec
dus, si modo quid unquam recte et feliciter operari intendimus. Praeter- 120 tarn saepe et multum commendata cognitio tantos quanti luerunt elfe-
ea cum nihil in uniuerso esse noscatur cuius svmbolum hominis natura cisse uidetur. Adducam aliquot ethnicorum scriptorum non minus illus-
non fuerit indulgentissime sortita— appelleturque propterea ab Aristotele tria suffragia, si forte apud Christianos Christianorum puncta parum
 638 P A R T II TEXTS 639

fidei h abent, sim ul ne quis p u tet hanc n o titiam ad C h ristian u m dogm a 165 H aec enim cum ceteras res om nis turn quod difficillim um est docuit, ut
et d octrinam tan tu m spectare. T am etsi im prim is necessaria esse noscitur nosm etipsos noscerem us. C uius praecepti ta n ta uis, ta n ta sententia est,
125 ad hoc ut m ontes suscipientes pacem populo et colles iustitiam finem ut ea non hom ini cuipiam , sed D elphico deo trib u e re tu r. H oc retuli Cice-
praescriptum co n seq u an tu r. Q u i cum absque fide spe et caritate non at- ronis, ne forte quis crederet quod exteriorem hom inem uidere esset ho­
ting atu r, caritas autem non inf'undatur nisi in subiectum per uirtutes m inem cognoscere. Q uod et T hales M ilesius in n u it et M agnus Basilius
m orales rite dispositum , disponi non possit nisi in hom ine et secundum 170 nepotes instruens elucidat: O m ne porro, ait, stu d iu m ponere, ut corpori
hom inem uiuente et o p eran te, necesse est profecto hunc hom inem prae- quam optim e sit hom inis est seipsum ignorantis, sed opus est m aiore sa­
130 nosse e quo, non autem e b ru to , in ho m in em caelestem et d iu in u m rege- pientia, ut quisque nostrum quid tandem ipse sit possit cognoscere. Sed
neram u r, im aginem pertectam adepti. F iunt enim ista num eris gradibus- A ristotelis ad hoc non est p raetereu n d a sententia, p raesertim cum pleris-
que suis cum Dei o rd in atissim a sint d ona, nec uenerit C h ristus soluere que nihil nisi quod ille dixerit fidem faciat. Et is quoque in proem io
legem n atu ralem sed adim plere, p ro p te r quod D iuus B ernardus in quo- 175 lib ro ru m De amma huiusm odi cognitionem ad om nem aliam scientiam
dam sermone: Scio, in q u it, n em inem absque cognitione sui posse saluari. p raefatu r ualde proficere, et scienter quidem , uel ex praeceptoris discipli-
135 Sed ethnicos quoque au d iam u s. Q u is in ter philosophos quot sunt, quot na. Q u o enim pacto poterit quis ad prim am philosophiam accedens in
fuerunt, q u o tq u e post aliis e ru n t in annis P latone au ctoritate et sapientia cognitionem d iu in aru m atque altissim arum cau saru m deuenire nisi per
clarior? At is, ne semel q u id em , sed in Hipparcho Philebo Carmide Phaedro ea quae u irtu te intellectus possibilis consequi datu r? Q uom odo m oralem
utroque Alcibiade alibi q u o q u e, sui cognitionem praeh ab en d am m onet. In 180 quis ualebit apprehendere nisi potentias an im ae praeceperit, cum diuer-
dialogo De philosophia: S eipsum , in q u it, nosse sapere est, seipsum igno- sae u irtu tes diuersis potentiis ascrib an tu r, et ab ipsis principia atque
140 rare desipere. Et in Phaedro q u asd am tabulas se nescire in terp retari fassus subiecta u irtu tu m em ergant? Q uom odo suae disciplinae fundam enta
Socrates, Q u o n iam , in q u it, iuxta delphicum preceptum , m eipsum non- percipient noui Iustiniani, ne dicam professores, qui prius anim as quam
dum noui, ridiculum puto, cum m ea ipse ignorem , scrutari aliena. M er- linguas eru ditas habere oportere ad m o n en tu r, si quae sit anim ae eruditio
curius autem ille T e r M ax im u s in Pimandro: Q ui seipsum , inquit, cog- 185 nesciuerint, nec in q u a anim ae portione p ru d en tia consistat, quam (utpote
noscit, quod est super essentiam consecutus est. P ro p ter quod noster u irtu tu m om nium ac totius uitae actiuae directricem legum que paren-
145 Satvricus studia m o rtaliu m p raep o stera et plerum que fatua carpens, E tem ) toties nom inat prudentissim us im perator? Q u o pacto m edicus me-
coelo, inquit, descendit yvoiOi aeauxov; figendum et m em ori tractan d u m dicinam Fid liter et tuto exercere < t > nisi u tru m q u e hom inem adam us-
pectore. Persius uero, D iscite et o m iseri causas cognoscite reru m quid sim praecalluerit et q u a parte anim ae u ita q u am potissim um procurat
sum us aut q u id n am uictu ri gig n im u r. Et apud O u id iu m : D iuersum uul- 190 in tro d u cta per qualitates prim as proportio n ab iliter iunctas seruetur?
gata per orbem littera, cognosci qu ae sibi q u em que iubet. Q uom odo m ihi an im aru m cu rato r qui artem artiu m exercere dicitur a n i­
150 Sed quid p o etaru m et h o m in u m testim o n ia singillatim afferre studeo, m as curare n o u erit, si ne ap p etitu m quidem n atu ralem a rationali distin-
cum d eorum et u n iu ersae G raeciae p u n cta ad hoc offerantur? Apollo guere sciuerit? Q u o pacto nouum hom inem noscet induere qui ne uete-
D elphicus, cuidam studioso consulenti quo itinere ad sapientiam et beati- rem quidem excusserit u n q u am inspexeritque? Q u o m o d o diuini uerbi
tudinem conscenderet, si teipsum cognoueris, respondit. Q uod deinde 195 b u ccinator, non dico u erbum ipsum trin itatisq u e m ysterium en arrab it,
C hilonem usurpasse ferunt. A m phictiones uero, hoc est uniuersale G rae- sed ad b onum exhortari, a malo d eh o rtari an im a d u e rte t, qui non m axi­
155 ciae concilium , in ingressu tem pli A pollinei litteris aureis inscribi m u m anim ae b onum et m alum intellexerit? D e logicis sileo, q uorum
iusserunt, ut om nes ingressuri tem p lu m au t oraculum p etitu ri illud prius plerique ad in teriorum conceptuum differentias et proprietates halluci-
inspicerent ad m o n e re n tu rq u e, singuli sapientiae deum consulturi ut n a n tu r, q u ia se in tra n u n q u am qu aesieru n t in sp ex eru n tq u e, uerum quid
seipsos p renoscerent, tam q u a m a sapientiae num ine nullum rite habituri 200 sua intersit quisque uiderit. P uto enim tarn fuscae m entis esse nem inem
responsum nisi hoc p raen o scen d u m intelligerent, quod totius sapientiae qu in ta n ta in luce cum D em onace sentiat, tunc d em u m quem piam sape­
160 esse sicuti u estibulum . S u p er quo M arcu s V arro ille doctissim um librum re au t philosophari coepturum , cum seipsum noscere coeperit. Ego
com posuit teste A ugustino, A ttacinus uero S atvram . C icero in Tuscula- quidem non m odo argum entis ac testibus om ni exceptione m aioribus,
ms\ in libris De fimbus saepe m em init, A d Quintum Fratrem quoque. et sed re ipsa adm onitus hanc notitiam m ihi cum sem per, turn m axim e
prim o De legibus: M a te r o m n iu m b o n aru m reru m est sapientia, q ua nihil 205 nunc pro iniu n cta prouincia prae cunctis excutiendam p u tau i, praeduce
a diis im m ortalibus uberiu s, nihil p raestan tiu s hom inum uitae datum est. atq u e doctore Platone, qui licet uisibilia o m n ia atq u e inuisibilia scruta-
 640 P A R T II T E X TS 641

tus, nihil inexcussum , nihil in ex p lo ratu m reliquisse noscatur, m oralem tuo colloquio diutius frui gaudebam quam potissim um ex om nibus ex-
tam en philosophiam p raecipue excoluisse u id etu r, sicut et praestan- 50 optaui u t super iis alloquerer, non quidem u t quicq u am tibi, antistes sa-
tissim us quisque alius. N ec in iu ria. Q u o d enim operae p retiu m est uel pientissim e, suggererem , quern haec et longe m eliora nobis diuinissim e
210 uniuersa alia nouisse au t p erspicaciter co n tem platum fuisse, se uero et p raedicantem audiui, sed ut te mihi iudicem et censorem super his
quid est secundum hom inem u iu ere ignorasse? Q u i autem sibi ignotus, facerem , sim ul et p atro n u m im plorarem , non m odo ad haec progvm -
quae ei recte innotescent? Q u i sui negligens, quo pacto aliena est curatu- nasm ata, sed ut abs te pridem ad scribendum h o rtatu s, cum a Leone
rus? M erito profecto et sap ien ter E u ripides ptae! aocpi<7T7]v oaxu; ou^ auxco 55 pontifice m axim o ad reges terrae legatus apud illustres com ites Pepolos
ao<po<;. Nec Stagirites philosophum , hoc est sapientiae studiosum , censet diuertisses te opitulante, cum alia turn conceptum hom inem quandoque
215 intelligentem ta n tu m , non etiam o p e ra n te m . H anc itaque philosophiam p u lcherrim um atque m ortalibus om nibus excolendum m ature pariam .
non tantum sapientissim us quisq u e architectonicam et ueluti scopon T e igitur u n a cum R euerendissim is dom inis dom ino D om ino Achille de
agnouit, u erum etiam gen tiu m consensus indicauit. Q u ae enim hom i- Grasses et dom ino D om ino L aurentio C am pegio patriciis B ononiensibus,
num natio quae et m an ib u s et intellectu bonum non inten d at bonique 60 tribus autem fontibus d o ctrin aru m iterum atque iterum ad haec honestis-
gratia o p eretu r q uicquid o p eratu r? A tqui b o n o ru m om n iu m sum m um sim a coepta adiutores inuoco, quibus ut optim um q u em q u e facile assen-
220 est felicitas siue beatitu d o , q u am m oralis siue actiua philosophia atque surum confido, ita plerosque in tantis m orum ac studiorum sordibus
etiam theologia in q u irit, haec q u id em n atu ralem , ilia uero su p ern atu ra- G rvlli potius (ut est apud P lutarchum ) quam Ulyssis sententiam secutu-
lem conciliatura, cuius fructus et effectus non m odo occultos et inenarra- ros non am bigo. V ale m u saru m decus et praesidium . D atu m Bononiae
biles, sed uulgo notos, si in tu e a m u r, clarissim os agnoscem us. H aec enim 65 Idibus D ecem bris 1520.
non m odo R om anos reru m dom inos fecit, sed om nia regna et m axim a
225 quaeque im peria constituit. P er hanc q u aeq u e fam igeratae urbes et belli-
cis ciuilibusque operibus illustres uiri ad ingentem reru m gestarum glo- 98 scructurum sic ed.\ structuram Bernardus 183 precepent ed. 190 inrodutta sic ed.
riam sum m am que p o ten tiam p e ru e n e ru n t. P er hanc m ystrae sceptra
17-18 Cicero, Acad. 11.3.8 23-24 idem, S a t. Dear. 11.12: Tusc. 1.32 32 Olympiodorus.
coronae apices cardinei atq u e pontificei su g g eru n tu r. P er hanc deus fit In Grg. 41.9, ed. Westerink, p. 215 67-68 Rom. 15:4 95-98 Bernardus Clareuallensis.
m ortali iuuans m ortalem . H an c u t o rd in a re t atque perficeret C h ristus de De consid. 11.316, ed. Leclercq-Rochais, 3:414 99-108 locus similis inuenitur apud
230 coelo descendit, C h ristian ae atq u e actiuae uitae no rm a, et pro p terea suc- Ugonem s. Victoris (attrib.), M editationes pussim ae de cogmtione hum anae conditw m s, cap.
14= PL 184:494D; cl. Augustinus, Con/. VIII.7.16 109-110 Chrvsostomus, In Ep. ad
cessorem suum , non co n tem p latiu u m Io an n em , sed actiuum P etrum , C oloss., cap. III. Horn. IX = PG 62:361 111-113 Lactantius, D iv. inst. 1.1.25 = CSEL
ecclesiae suae in terris m ilitanti praefecit. Q u id terram et terre n a loquor? 19:6 114-116 Boethius, Cons. II, pr. 5, 87 134 Bernardus Clareuallensis, Serm.
N um q u id et caeiestis m ilitia in assidua actione u ersatu r, caeli profecto ip- super Cant. Cantic. XXXVII. 1.1, ed. Leclercq-Rochais, 2:9 139-140 Am at.
138A 141-142 Phdr. 230A 143-144 Herrnetica 1. 19 ( Poim andres ), ed. Scott.
si et quae supra caelos sunt intelligentiae incessabiliter operan tu r? Deus 1:125 147-148 Persius. Sat. III.66-67 148-149 Ouidius. Ars. A m at. 11.499-500
235 ipse benedictus, D eus ex ercitu u m , C h risto ftlio teste operari non cessat, 161 cf. Augustinus, Ciu. Dei IV.22; VIA 163-164 Cicero, D e leg. 1.22.58-59
quern et Aristoteles non con tem p latio n em sed actum n u n cu p at. Est ete- 170-172 Basilius Magnus, A d adolesc., cap. 9, ed. Boulenger, p. 55 175-177 Arist. D e
an. 1.1, 402a 5, ed. Hett, p. 8 213-214 Euripides. 1'rag. 905, ed. Nauck-Snell,
nim reuera actus purissim us atq u e d iuinissim us, quo un iu ersa ag u n t et p. 652 = Cicero, Fam. XIII. 15.2 262-264 Plutarchus, M or. 986C (Bruta anim alia ratione
m o u en tu r et ex quo et a quo o m n iu m actu u m perfectio d e riu a tu r, cuius uti), ed. Bernardakis 6: 84
actiones haec nostra philosophia q u o ad fieri potest n ititu r im itari. Ad
240 quam elucidandam , cum d u d u m (licet indignus) a R eu eren d o Vicelegato
B ernardo Roscio Episcopo T a ru isin o m agnificisque R eform atoribus
fuissem ascriptus constituissem que p rim u m P latonis A lcibiadem tan- 81. Francisci Z am pini epistula praeuia ad editionem Platonis T im aei
topere com m endatum h uius disciplinae candidatis praelegere, cum P la­ uersione Ficiniana Parisiis a. D. 1527 im pressam ; de q ua edit. uid. infra,
tonis uolum ina non m u lta ad m o d u m a bibliopolis h a b e re n tu r im pressor- C at. B, no. 39.
245 que hortatu mei com m odo et im pensae studiosorum consulentis utrum -
que A lcibiadem seiunctim im p rim ere ag g red eretu r, in dialogi com m en- Franciscus Z am pinus D om ino Francisco M edullae consiliario regio.
dationem praefaciunculam postu lau it. Ego uero hanc exarare aggressus, P arentis eloquentiae M arci T ulli C iceronis uerbis com plures impulsi
cum breuem inten d erem , in longum m e traxit, turn res ipsa turn quod sic uiros qui in ea haeresi sunt quae nullum sequitur florem orationis
642 P A R T II TE X TS 643

lacerant iniustisque lacessunt contum eliis, ut p atriam prodidisse aut Sim on G ry n aeu s candido lectori salutem .
p aren tu m uiolasse caritatem u id e a n tu r, nam ea uti philosophia quae P ro b are u eh em en ter studium conatusque et pietatem M arsilii soleo,
dicendi pep erit copiam d icunt o p o rtere. H an c enim perfectam sem per uiri m eo q u id em iudicio optim i, qui ut philosophiam nobis ueterem gus-
iudicauit C icero disciplinam quae de m axim is q u aestionibus copiose tan d am p raeb eret patefaceretque, cum uires suas non ignoraret, nihil
posset o rn a te q u e dicere. Isto ru m q u id em sententia p artim tam q u am er- 5 d u b ita u it de nom ine et fam a sua quid fieret, m odo et u eritati consuleret
ron ea exploditur, p artim ueluti u e ra a nobis acceptatur. Eos prim um bene, cum qui p ropter utilitatem publicam de ingenio cedere uelit, nullus
aberrare h u m a n iq u e generis indignos societate ut qui de republica suis facile re p e ria tu r. Itaq u e m agnam gratiam m anibus uiri debem us ob
studiis benem eritos d a m n e n t censeo. C uilibet autem facultati sua egregia m erita. Ac dolet mihi quidem deliciis literaru m inescatos subito
m ateria suusque finis a ttrib u itu r, ut g ram m atico co n g ru u m , orato ri or- iam hom ines adeo esse, praesertim qui C hristianos se profitentur, ut
n atu m , dialectico u eru m uel falsum , sic qui de rebus subtiliter disputant 10 legere, nisi quod ad gulam facit, sustineant nihil, un d e et disciplinae et
uerbis p h aleratis om issis, ueritatis h ab en t serm onem . Q u a re sibi ipsis philosophia ipsa iam fere prorsus etiam a doctis negliguntur. Q uod q u i­
consentientes, qui nullum s e q u u n tu r u e rb o ru m a p p a ra tu m neque dila- dem p ropositum studiorum nisi m ature co rrig atu r, tarn m agnum rebus
tan t a rg u m e n tu m , sed q u ib u sd am m inutis in terrogatiunculis ueluti in com m odum dabit quam dedit barbaries olim. P ertin ax res barbaries
punctis efficiunt quod p ro p o n u n t, calu m n ia uacare debent. Nec enim est, fateor, sed m inus potest tam en quam ilia p ersuasa p ru d en tia litera­
suadere sed d em o n strare sta tu u n t, q uod ut asseq u an tu r longa non egent ls ru m , si ratione caret, sapientiae uirtutisque specie m ortales circum -
oratione. Ex quo eorum libri sunt legendi et quid et non quo stilo dicant ducens. N ihil enim perniciosius est quam cum rerum et u erborum studia
inspicere oportet. C u m uero praeceptis institu tisque philosophiae abun- d iu id u n tu r. Succedet igitur, ut arbitror, haud ita m ulto post pro rusti-
d au erim u s, ad earn nos philosophiae p artem quae orationis sequitur cana saeculi nostri ruditate captatrix ilia blandiloquentia ro b u r anim i
ueneres cont'ugiam us oportet, ut p ru d e n te r ab illis dicta et disp u tata, ex uirilis om ne, om nem u irtutem m asculam profligatura, nisi caueatur. Ita-
ea copiose splendide o rn ateq u e d icam us. Q u am o b rem o m nium haec 20 que m ihi libuit, eodem quo egregius ille u ir consilio, translatione ipsius
com m unis debet haberi sententia, in eo ru m libris non conterendam cum exem plari G raeco diligenter collata et pro uirili nostra m endis om ­
totius uitae aetatem . Est enim co n tra officium , nim is m ag n u m studium nibus iam recens per nos repurgata, Platonis philosophiam quam latis-
m u ltam q u e o peram in rem h uiusm odi conferre. Sed quo n iam m ulti pau- sim e, q u a n tu m id per me quidem fieri potest, propagare. N am , ut iam
pertatem d a m n a n t eaque se im pediri p raed icant qu o m in u s m eum te- olim cum G raecia sophistis uanissim o genere hom inum scateret, praesti-
nean t consilium , lab o rau i L atine im p rim i te m axim e h o rtan te D iuini 25 giis u e rb o ru m praecipuos m ortalium passim ubique ad se trahente,
Platonis Timaeum, id est De natura, et Phaedonem, id est, De animi immortali- lingua spiritu q u e uenali opes sibi conflante et sapientiae nom en tu rp iter
tate, ut p aru o em an t u n d e L atine lo q u a n tu r quod b arb are d id icerunt. In ­ sibi uen d ican te, Socratis et Platonis grauissim is disputationibus breui
cognita au te m ante hos annos P latonis d iu in a m ysteria et secreta uir- effectum est u t inanissim i hom ines innotescerent orbi, sic puto solida
tu tu m p en etralia fuere; a nobis ig itu r erit ag endum u t in fu tu ru m non earu n d em disp u tatio n u m ui pullulanti malo tem pestiue occurretur. Vale
m inus Platonici qu am P eripatetici uelin t esse. Bene uale, u irtu tu m om ­ 30 lector, et philosophare feliciter.
nium studiosissim e. P arisiis IIII N onas A ugusti 1527.

6-8 Cicero, Tusc. 1.4.7 83. A nonym i praefatio in editionem Platonis T im aei interprete Ficino
V alentiae im pressam apud Ioannem M ey F lan d ru m anno 1547; de qua
uid. infra, C at. B, no. 69.

Ad Lectorem .
C u m non pauci sint auctores, lector studiose, quibus ueritatis inuesti-
gatores plu rim u m debent quod rerum utilissim arum notitiam sum m is
82. Sim onis G ry n aei praefatio ad P latonis opera L atin a uersione Ficini suis laboribus com paratam posteritati relinquere non sint grauati, tam en
ab eodem G ry n aeo recensita. inter alios om nes principem locum cum in dicendo turn intelligendo
 644 P A R T II TE X TS 645

tenere u id etu r diuinus Plato, ac non h u m an o sed altiori quodam spiritu 15 Dicebatur autem, ut opinor, semper sic ab iis, qui se aliquid dicere ex-
peruestigasse ac tradidisse reru m n a tu ra m , ut ex eo facile cognoscere istimabant, ut nunc quidem ego dicebam: nempe hominum opiniones par-
liceat, q u a n tu m ualeat uitae in tegritas et u irtu tis lum en ad u eritatem in- tim plurimi faciendas ac sequendas, partim uero minime. Hoc per Deos,
quiren d am et illustrandam . Itaq u e uidem us m ultos, sum m os alioqui o Crito, nonne tibi recte dici uidetur? Tu enim, ut fert hominum conditio,
abes a periculo, ut crastino die moriaris, nec te in errorem inducit praesens
10 scriptores, p ro p ter uitae tu rp itu d in e m et o stentandi potius studium 20 calamitas.
qu am uera dicendi, dum ingenii neruos contentionibus d eteru n t et Xerc-
xoXeax^ou^, generosam istam ac sublim em intelligendi uim neq u aq u am H aec in q u am om nia in Critonis dialogo pagina 326 editionis nostrae
adsecutos. Profecto sunt cognata u eh em en ter ueritas et u irtus, nec mens superioris adhuc desid erab an tu r.
uitiis infecta uel affectibus d istracta potest sinceram reru m lucem penitus R e q u ire b a tu r praeterea locus in Charmide uenustissim us, quern prim i
15 intueri. Sed Plato orationis re ru m q u e sublim i q u ad am efficacia, cum om n iu m de G raeco conuersum legendum studiosis exhibem us. Locus est
m entem ad cognatas sibi rerum form as attollit, unde facilius inferiorum 25 pag in a 192.
uicissitudinem cernere possit, non im m erito m axim orum au cto ru m iudi- Turn ego, o amice, iam haerebam ac me ea confidentia deseruit, quam
cio ceteris philosophis fuerit an tip o n en d u s. C eteru m cum uarios scripse- paulo ante habebam, fore ut cum eo facillime disputarem. At posteaquam
rit libros, utilissim os quidem om nes, tam en uel eo prim as Timaeus tenet, Critias dixit me eum esse cui medicamentum notum esset, aspexit me oculis
20 quod, cum exiguus sit, u n iu ersam philosophiam exquisitam solidam con- tamquam prodigum quoddam et quasi interrogaturus ad nos accessit,
30 omnesque qui in palaestra erant continuo ad nos confluxerunt ac circuli
tineat ac necessariam ad reru m exactam cognitionem . Q u a p ro p te r libel- instar circumdederunt. Turn uero, o generose, ubi aspexi quae sub pallio
lum hunc seorsum excudendum p ara u im u s, quern sem per esse m anibus latebant, totus exarsi, neque amplius eram apud me, Cydianque in
ueri philosophi u ersan d u m existim am us. V ale. amoribus sapientissimum iudicaui, qui de formoso puero loquens, sed
similitudinem alterius rei subiiciens monuit me etiam atque etiam uiderem,
35 ne hinnulus in leonis conspectum ueniens frustum carnium auferrem. Mihi
quippe captus certe esca ilia fuisse uidebar. Cum autem ipse percontatus
22 purauimus ed. esset, utrum capitis medelam scirem.

A dhuc ergo duae m agnae et foedae lacunae Platonis L atinam transla-

tionem turpissim e d efo rm aru n t et illos diligentes collatores, qui nobis
40 ante hoc tem pus suas castigationes ebulliebant, turpissim e foedissimeque
84. A ntonii V incentii typographi L u gdunensis praefatio ad uersionem la tu e ru n t. U bi sunt hom ines ingeniosi, qui Sim onis G rynaei uiri claris-
Ficini a se im pressam anno 1557; de quo uid. infra, no. 96. sim i nom ine antehac ad suum quaestum tu rp iter abusi sunt? qui colla-
tionem ab eo adhibitam et correctionem M arsilii interpretationis in
A ntonius V incentius lectoribus salutem . lib ro ru m suorum titulis iactabant, quorum titu lo ru m lectione uel uadi-
D uabus de causis nouae huius editionis nostrae rationem referre 45 m onium (ut ille dixit) deseri potuisset? Q uam m agno quaeso uirum ilium
uolum us. P rim u m ne q u o ru n d a m ty p o g rap h o ru m perfidiam secuti exis- exim ium honore afficiunt, dum eum tantas lacunas au t m alitia dissimu-
tim em ur, qui castigationes et co m parationes q ua G raecorum q ua uetus- lasse au t socordia praeterm isse uideri uolunt? A tqui uitia sunt generis
5 toru m codicum in lib ro ru m su o ru m indicibus prope cubitalibus literis eiusdem prope innum erabilia.
profiten tu r, cum in terea p o rten ta e rro ru m nobis pro castissim is et niti- In Cratylo, pagina 228 ... [Sequuntur posthac sedecim loci alii quos in editioni-
dissimis libris su p p o n an t, deinde u t ne doctissim i hom inis in d u stria, qui 50 bus prioribus desiderasse asserit Vincentius. ]
nobis sum m a et assidua contentione peten tib u s suum P latonem ad G rae- Q u a m m u lta denique fuerunt eiusm odi, p raesertim si unius aut alte­
cum exem plar castigatu u ten d u m dedit, laude et g ratia quae illi ab om- rius uersus iactu ram spectem us? Q u id si u erb o ru m inFinitatem persequi
10 nibus gratis hom inibus d eb etu r n o stra culpa careat. uellem us quern istius exitum orationis inuenirem us? qu o ru m partim
Ergo u t com parationem fuisse G raeci libri adhibitam testatum apud quae ab eran t reposuim us, partim quae co rru p ta e ra n t em endauim us.
om nes studiosos relinquam us, dicim us in Platonis dialogo qui Cnto in- 54 P erp au ca tam en proferre satius fuerit quae de aliis infm itis existim andi
scribitur hunc insignem locum neque a M arsilio conuersum neque adhuc copiam suppeditent. ... [Laudantur deinde alii quindecim loci in edd. prioribus
ab ullo restitutum a nobis p rim u m hac editione repositum fuisse: praetermissi uel corrupti. ]
646 P A R T II T E X TS 647

D enique singula recensere et laboris esset im m ensi et hom inis m eliorem aliquem interpretem et doctiorem q u aerat aut cuius quam
uolum en non epistolam conscribentis. N am eius codicis quem nacti n o stro ru m tralationem T u llian ae praeferendam arb itre tu r. In T im aei
sum us innum eris istiusm odi castigationibus refertos m argines perspex- tam en in terp retatio n e cum ille pro p ter longiorem serm onem nihil in
im us et cum am icis plerisque, qui m ag n a cum ad m iratio n e tan tam uitio- 100 m arg in ib u s angustissim is adscripsisset, tan tu m locorum translationem
rum lernam co n sid eraru n t, lib en ter co m m u n icau im u s, neque fuit quis- hac no ta [scil. signo manus] designasset, earn C iceronis libri quae extat
quam qui doctissim i hom inis a quo isti prope H erculei labores exantlati p artem in finem huius uolum inis reiecim us, u n d e quod cuique com-
eran t ind u striam ac diligentiam non m ax im a laude et gratia dignissim am m o d u m erit facile assu m atu r. Ad hanc porro diligentiam haec etiam in
iudicaret. Beneficio n am q u e illius factum esse, ut P latonis translatio quae prim is co m m em o ran d a et m agnis digna laudibus accessit. C um
tarn m ultis ac foedis m aculis in q u in a ta studiosos ab ipsius lectione deter- 105 infiniti ex H om ero et H esiodo loci a Platone p ro feren tu r, eos m agno
rebat, eosdem nunc sua p u lch ritu d in e ac u en u state in uitet atque alliciat. labore in tarn m ultis libris conquisitos ac tandem repertos quo quique ex
Etenim ut genus tertiu m em en d atio n is exponam us, locos etiam non- libro sum pti essent in m argine quasi digitis ad fontes intentis indicauit.
nullos qui tarn im perite tam q u e p u eriliter conuersi eran t ut tolerari nulla D enique alio quoque diligentiae genere nostra haec editio m aiorem in
ratione posse u id e re n tu r, idem e ru d itu s u ir non d u b ita u it L atinos facere, m odum illustrata est. N am cum nec epistola P latonis postrem a, nec
tam etsi in perpaucis plane id factum est ne suum cuique iudicium non 110 eiusdem dialogi sex (qui tam en tan q u am ad u lterin i n o tan tu r) a M arsilio
relictum aliquis q u e re re tu r. In epistolis hunc insignem locum offen- conuersi essent aut u n q u am in hoc uolum en recepti, prim um illam
dim us. N em o m ediocriter saltern eru d itu s ignorat L atom ias carcerem epistolam L atin am fecit, turn sex dialogos eleganter a Sebastiano Con-
fuisse Svracusis, sic d ictum a lapidibus excisis. Plato igitur in epistola ter- rado [sic] uiro doctissim o conuersos suo loco, ut nihil posthac
tia ad D ionvsium Siciliae ty ra n n u m sic scribit. d esid eretu r, reponendos curauit.
115 Q u ae cum ita se hab ean t, nihil m ea quidem sen ten tia posthac homini-
xai OiAicrcta>v, li au depart au-cov, rjlfeiv irpo0u(xco<; ’A0r|vaCe.
U 7 t £ a x £ " 0 o e pLOt tov

ex ":d>v Xa-copicov eu inoitaou; a 9 Ei<;. bus nostris excusationis relin q u etu r, quo m inus studiose Platonis libros
p eru o lu an t et perpetuo in m anibus h abeant. N obis quidem uoluntas in
Q ui locus ad u erb u m expressus hoc significat: illorum studiis ad iu u an d is ac fortasse etiam facultas non defuit, neque
Promisit mihi Philistion si tu eum dimiseris, Athenas celeriter uenturum. posthac, si nobis hunc an im u m D eus O p tim u s M ax im u s conseruarit, un-
Recte feceris, si eum e Latomiis dimiseris. 120 q u am deerit, q u an tu m u is m agno pretio nobis boni et utiles libri con-
statu ri sint. V olum us enim et bonam eru d ito ru m uiro ru m uoluntatem
H aec est illius loci facillim a in te rp re ta tio , at in editionibus aliis legebatur
fouere nostris facultatibus et R eipublicae L iterariae com m odis, quantum
hoc modo:
in nobis erit, inseruire. Ac detestam u r ty p o g rap h o ru m qu o ru n d am aua-
Lithotoniensem uero ilium dimisisse laudabile fuit. ritiam q ui suis sordibus ingeniosos hom ines ab labore et diligentia
Eccuius tandem hom inis tan tu s stu p o r fuisset qui tarn foedum errorem 125 castig an d o ru m librorum uulgo deterren t. M ira n tu r m ulti, neque sane in-
diutius in his libris pulch errim is insidere p a teretu r. Sed et alia m ulto iu ria m ira n tu r, Plinii in ta n ta historia cu m u lan d a incredibilem diligen­
laudabilior fuit eiusdem doctissim i uiri diligentia, qui n o m in ari quidem tiam . At quale calcar p u tam u s Plinio fuisse, quod ciuis unus, et idem
in p raesentia noluit, ne in opere alieno ingeniosus uideri uelle ex- p riu atu s, decern ei au reo ru m m illia pro suis com m entariis num erauit?
istim etur au t ex aliorum peccatis crescere. Satis constat innum eros Q u ale Isocrati ad eloquentiam excolendam , quod unicam orationem
Platonis locos a C icerone unico L atin e scribendi co n u erten d iq u e magis- 130 decern talentis, id est au reo ru m q u inque m illibus uendiderit? Exemplis
tro passim in suis libris lu cu len ter et prope d iu initus expressos esse. Hos uti liceret in num eris, si nobis id ab initio pro p o situ m fuisset. V erum
locos om nes cum ille ad m arg in em adscribere coepisset, p artim angustiis hanc esse ta n tu m voluim us breuem lectoribus h o ru m librorum commo-
m arginum adductus, p artim ut C iceronis a m an tiu m studiis inseruiret, n itio n em , u n d e nostrae huius editionis nouae ratio constare posset. Ac
quo ru m hoc tem pore m ag n u m esse n u m e ru m intelligebat, in contextum sp eram u s n o stru m consilium bonis ac studiosis uiris pro b atu m iri. Q uod
ipsum reposuit, C iceronis libro, u nde ilia descripserat, diligenter in 135 si contigerit Deo iu u an te pollicem ur fore u t eadem diligentia com plures
m argine notato atque indicato. In quo sane qui factam alicui iniuriam alii u eteru m au cto ru m castigati libri e no stra officina, ad com m unem rei
q u e ra tu r hom inem fore nem inem a rb itra m u r, nisi forte quis C icerone literariae u tilitatem in lucem pro feran tu r. V alete et dum licet doctissimi
uiri o p era in d u striaq u e fruim ini. L ugduni.
648 P A R T II T E X TS 649

32 Cvdianque] Critianique ed., fort, ex ineptia auctons: xai ... KuStav Graece 33 sed] aXXaj m ulgata aetern a C hristi sapientia d is s id e n ts clarae et illustres habentur.
codd. gr . : aXXa leg. Anon. Lugd., ut uid. 76 atpr^ ed., in marg. cod. Vat. gr. 1 cit. Burnet\ a<p£r]' De m orte enim prim a erudite philosophatur, m iserias hum anae uitae
a<piT]i<;, acpricjcic; codd. alii: atpetTK Hermann 11 jp. Xaxofxtdiv correctores in tribus codd. a t
Burnet] XtOo-coutaiv in textu codd. omnium 114 curaruit sic ed. uere deplorat, im m ortalitatem anim orum confirm at, beatae im m ortalita-
tis p raem ia et beatitatem eleganter describit, uitae cupiditatem exim it,
15-20 Cn. 46D 7-47A 2 26-37 Chrm. 155D 3-E 3 76-77 re uera Ep. I f 314E 3-4 35 constantiam et fortitudinem m ortem appetendi anim is hom inum in-
generat. Eo accedit, quod te, in fam ilia clarissim i u iri dom ini W olfgangi
Streitii olim agentem , cum ante m ultos annos in A eneide V irgiliana
publice acroases facerem , inter plurim os auditores facile principem
85. Jo a n n is Ja c o b i B eureri praefatio in libri qui A xiochus dicitur uer- studio et assiduitate habuisse intelligo. Q uern tu erg a me anim um
sionem , quae in'lib ro Basileae anno 1585 im presso ad seru atu r; uid. C at. 40 deinceps perpetuo m ultis officiis et gratitudinis arg u m en tis confirm asti
B, no. 128. declarasti retinuisti. Accipe igitur hoc illorum tem p o ru m qualecum que
pvTqpoauvov, dum tibi secundioribus, eav 6 9bo<; BeXt), faustiora laetitiora-
R euerendo uiro dom ino Io an n i Noschio sacrosanctae theologiae bac- que offerre queam us. V ale. D ata F riburgi Brisgoiae K alendas Septem-
calaureo f'ormato, eiusdem que Professori, Praesidi Collegii D iuae bris anno M D X V C [sic, pro M D X X V C ].
Sophiae apud F rib u rg u m Brisgoiae, dom ino et am ico suo plu rim u m ob-
seruando salutem p lu rim am dicit. 45 T u ae R eu erentiae am antissim us obseruantissim usque Ioannes Iaco-
A nni sunt octo et eo am plius cum dialogum hunc De morte, reuerende bus B eurerus.
ornatissim eque D om ine P raeses— qui quidem uulgo Platoni trib u itu r
(q u am q u am M arsilius aperte eu ndem X en o crati cuidam Platonico in-
scribat), sed et m ea sen ten tia in ter voGeuopevoui; a doctioribus h a b e tu r— in 21 uid. Ap. 19C
scholis nostris paedagogicis sum in terp retatu s. In quern cum n uper
nescio quas m eas notas in aduersariis meis reperissem , h orum calam ito-
sorum et paulo ante nos funestorum tem p o ru m ad m o n itu , turn uero dia-
logi suauissim i eru d itiq u e uo lu p tate ad ductus, ju d icau i dignissim um qui
iuu en tu ti saepe saepiusque et p ro p o n e re tu r et rep o n eretu r. A d quern 86 . E iusdem Beureri prooem ium in epistulas P latonis uersione Fici-
etiam rectius et distinctius p ercip ien d u m , fortassis etiam hae m eae qua- nian a ab eodem B eurero editas atque illustratas anno 1586; uid. C at. B,
lescunque notae, nisi u eh em en ter fallor, aliquid ad ium enti adferre no. 131.
poteru n t. G enus quidem hoc docendi trad en d iq u e St” epcoxriaecov aliquid
a q u ibusdam non ignore, sed sanniones tales literatos nihil m oror; ado- [Dedicatw auctons] V IR T V T I P IE T A T I A M P L IT V D IN IQ V E
lescentibus studiosis haec scripsi, qui eiusm odi 68r)yiai<; xai x £tPaTa)T^ai<» R E V E R E N D O R V M C L A R IS S IM O R V M E X C E L L E N T IS S IM O -
ad considerationem m a x im aru m reru m in lectione b o n o ru m auctorum R V M P R A E S T A N T IS S IM O R V M Q V E V IR O R V M , M A G N IF IC I
m irifice a d iu u a n tu r, non iis qui arcem om nis eruditionis et doctrinae iam D O M IN I R E C T O R IS C A E T E R O R V M Q V E O M N IV M O R D I-
tenent, aepo(3aTOuvx£<; xai 7repi<ppovoGvx£<; tov t]Xio v . 5 N V M P R O C E R V M AC P A T R V M IN C L Y T A E A C A D E M IA E FR I-
T ib i uero, ornatissim e D om ine praeses, potissim um 7tp 0 9 a>v£lv m ultis B V R G E N S IS Q V I N O B IS H O C O T IV M L IT E R A R IV M F E C E R E
de causis uisum est, quod a rg u m e n tu m dialogi professioni et generi uitae H O C C E P L A T O N IC A R V M E P IS T O L A R V M O M N I P H IL O S O -
cui te p ru d e n te r addixisti a d m o d u m affine est. Q u id enim in sacrosancta P H IC A E T P O L IT IC A S A P IE N T IA P R A E C E L L E N S O P V S C V -
theologia tritius et notius q u am disputationes de m orte p rim a et secunda, L V M IO A N N E S IA C O B V S B E V R E R S A C C IN G E N S IS SVAE ER-
de constantia et fortitudine appetendi m ortem , de calam itatibus et io G A E O R V N D E M M A G N IF IC A S D O M IN A T IO N E S E T A M P L I-
aerum nis huius uitae e a ru m q u e causis, de beata im m ortalitate et aeterna T V D IN E S S IN G V L A R IS O B S E R V A N T IA E G R A T IT V D IN IS Q V E
uita, de statu a n im a ru m post o bitum ? De quibus om nibus, etsi philoso- D E C L A R A N D A E S T V D IO L IB E N S M E R IT O D O N V M D E D IT
phia h u m an a uelut pedisequa et H a g a r ut p lurim um hallucinetur, A N N O A N A T O E X V IR G IN E IESV C H R IS T O M D X X C V I K A ­
tam en in hoc dialogo sententiae non m ultum a caelesti et diuinitus pro- L E N D A S < IV N IA S > .
650 P A R T II TE X T S 651

Prooernium in epistulas Platonis ad eundem m agnificum dom inum in iu ria spoliaret; sese flagitiosissimis hom inibus u t Philisto dederet;
Rectorem et am plissim um S enatum A cadem icum . P latoni callide uafre ingrate et inaequiter im poneret illuderetque. U nde
Princeps ilie ingenii et doctrinae P lato, M agnifice D om ine R ector, liquet nihil m inus D ionysium quam to (Be^atov xai 7uaxov xai uytep, con-
V iri reu eren tia pietate sapientia om ni d enique u irtu tu m genere claris- 60 stan tiam fidem et quicquid sincerum est ueram philosophiam existim a-
simi, patres am plissim i, turn d enique fore beatas respublicas p u tau it, si uisse. H aec illius flagitia infinitaque alia d iuinus Plato philosophica
aut docti et sapientes hom ines eas regere coepissent aut qui regerent libertate et seueritate in his praeclaris epistulis ita eidem exprobrat,
om ne suum studium in d o ctrin a ac sapientia collocassent. Sed praestat castigat, u t eum ad philosophiae et uirtutis u eru m illud, non adum -
ilium ipsum d iu in u m uiru m au d ire, cuius ore lu p p ite r ipse locuturus b ra tu m fictum que studium traducere sapientissim is adm onitionibus
erat, siquidem G raece loqui uellet. Is ig itu r in epistula ad D ionis necessa- 65 om ni ope co n n itatu r. Ac scripsit u ir ille diuinus de legibus et re publica
rios ita effatur: xaxdiv ouv ou Xri^eiv xoc av9pcimva yevr], npiv av 7) to tgov recta ad m in istra n d a p erm ulta quidem alia, sed rem publicam suis
oiAoao9 0 uvxcov opQwp zz xai dXr]9(I><; yevop ei? apxa? eX9r] Tap rcoXixixap r| to legibus in form atam nullam uidit.
xcl)v Sovaaxeoovxojv ev xalp noXeatv ex xivop poipap 9eiap ovxaip 9 1 X0 0 0 9 x107). H ae u ero ipsius insignes epistulae non ex um b ratili et scholastica exer-
Egregia uero uox et tanto tam que g raui philosopho dignissim a. Idem in citatione, sed ex eTCix&tpfasi et rcpdpei politica Siciliae optim is legibus
epistula ad A ristodorum q u i < d > sit 6p9dx; xe xai dtXr)9 do<9 9 tXooo9 eiv, 70 o rd in a n d a constituendaque effloruerunt. Q u o nom ine etiam ab om nibus
scilicet quid sit recte et uere philosophari, his uerbis interp retari: xo yap eo m aiore in pretio habendae sunt, quo m agis ea q u ae in uita hom inum
j3e(3aiov xai tuotov xai uyiep, xouxo eyco 9 r)pu etvat xrjv aXr]9ivr[v 9 tXooo9 tav, re ipsa h u n t, g e ru n tu rq u e (philosophi xa yivopeva appellant) iis, quae op-
constantiam fidern sinceritatem : hoc ego dico u eram esse philosophiam . ta n tu r (xalp euxa ^ opola vop,o9eCeiv, optatis similes leges ferre Plato uocat,
Q uod si haec coniunctio, potestatis dico et studii sapientiae, in ullo un- reliqui xa Seovxa) certiora euidentioraque u id en tu r. Q uem adm odum
quam m ortalium fuit, sane D ionysius iu n io r Siciliae tv ran n u s utriusque 75 au tem in D ionysio Siciliae tyranno im pii scelesti et nefarii principis
docum enta perquam illustria dedisse u id etu r. N am et potentia excelluit ideam ad u iu u m expressam aspicim us, sic co n tra in Platone philosophi
m axim e et sapientiae studio in llam m atu s (sic enim prae se ferebat) p ru d en tis aequi et m oderati legislatoris et doctoris politici exem plar longe
Platonem , cum quo de optim o statu reipublicae ac de aliis philosophiae luculentissim um in tu em u r, qui D ionysii ad om nem im probitatem et
m vsteriis coram p h ilosopharetur, bis ad sese accersiuit eique prim o in scelus, u t dixi, nefarios conatus oratione graui et libera reprehendit et
Siciliam uenienti u ittatam n auem , ut Plinius auctor est, perhonorifice 80 d e testatu r, eidem om ne honestatis pietatis u irtu tis et reipublicae recte
misit obuiam exeu n tem q u e q uadrigis albis excepit. Q u id igitur in causa praeclare lau d ab iliterq u e gerendae studium in g en erare sum m opere con­
est q uom inus Siciliam tali principe, in quo sapientiae studium et potestas te n d s .
quasi co n spirarent ac m utuas ut aiu n t operas trad eren t, florentissim am Q u a e om nia cum ita sint, uti certe sunt, quo loco habendi sunt com-
beatissim am que existim em us? N on pauca sane. Q u e ritu r enim diuinus m en tarii illi Nicolai cuiusdam M achiauelli, quos ille p atru m m em oria
Plato ubique in his epistulis hoc politicum et philosophicum m agisterium 85 cum de om ni ad m inistratione qua pace, q u a bello, turn de principe
in D ionysio erudien d o sibi n e q u a q u a m ex anim i sententia ces- scribere est ausus, acuti quidem ingenii uir, sed, u t qu id am de eo scrip­
sisse. Q u id ita uero? In causa fuit D ionysii non uera sed ficta et adum - sit, intestabilis et pestilentissim us om nis im probitatis et nequitiae
brata, non sapientiae sed opinionis cuiu sd am sapientiae xai 8 opoao9 iap fj m agister? Q u ip p e d um se prudentis et egregii principis quasi form am ex-
xai Sopopaviap affectatio et, quod P latoni m agistro ex anim o nec fideret p ressu ru m ostendit et tarn luculento prom isso lectorum anim os allicit,
nec sese eidem uere excolendum ded eret, philosophiae nullum honorem 90 uerissim is et im pietatis et tyrannici dom inatus astu quo iure, q ua iniuria
haberet. In rebus grauissim is et m axim is om issa ueri om ni seria et im p ru d en tes anim os im buit ac plane om nes u irtu ti neruos incidit. H inc
studiosa inuestigatione auxo8i8axxop uideri uellet, quod idem im m atu ra ilia foeda n efariaque axiom ata quae passim in ipsius scriptis reperiuntur:
JtpoTcexeta de sum m is rebus sine solidis d em o n stratio n ib u s hom o futilis an te o m n ia d an d am operam principi ut religiosus u id e a tu r, tam etsi re ip­
apud uulgus p ro n u n ciaret atque o m nem philosophiam indignissim e pro- sa talis non sit; fidem clem entiam liberalitatem u irtu tes esse adm odum
fanaret. Q u ae a m agistro Platone recte in stitu ta accepisset ipse iuuenili 95 dam nosas principi, cui tam en expediat, si eas ta n tu m m o d o prae se ferat;
audacia et im petu reru m q u e im p eritia sciolus im m u taret atque cor- m alis m oribus im plendam esse gentem uel ciuitatem de q ua princeps
rum peret; bonus doctos et pru d en tes uiros et cum prim is D ionem calum- u in d ictam sum ere nullo negocio cupiat; alendas factiones inter subditos
nia circum uentos iniquissim e expelleret; om n ib u s fortunis quo iure, qua et am an tes boni publici de m edio tollendos conseruandi dom inatus
 652 P A R T II TEXTS 653

causa; tlocci faciendum principi si crudelis h ab eatu r, m odo hac uia sub- enim m elior nobis hoc tem pore suppetebat; est tam en eadem a me non-
100 ditos dicto audientes efficiat; prin cip em qui tem pore pacis factiones inter nullis in locis em endata.
suos alat, eis ex anim i libidine facilius im p e ra tu ru m ; p raestare principi Eas ig itu r, V estris M agnificentiis et A m p litu d in ib u s anim o earundem
si m etu atu r, quam si am etu r; cru d elitatem quae ad b o n u m finem tendat obseruantissim o studiosissim oque do dedicoque. N ec im m erito. C ui
nullam reprehensionem m ereri; a periuriis fraudibus sim ulationibus 145 enim rectius hae Platonicae epistulae om ni sap ien tia philosophica et
m inim e principi ab stin en d u m , d u m , cum im postori se sem per offerant, politica refertissim ae, quam iis qui om nem philosophiam , artes optim as,
105 qui circum ueniri possint. et o m n ia p ropem odum linguarum genera in G e rm a n ia nostra om nium
H i sunt egregii Stygiae istius u ip erae p artu s, non om nes illi quidem , u irtu tu m genere clarissim a in hac n ostra p eru eteri et praecellente
sed ex m ultis exim ii. N eque desu n t tam en nonnulli qui M achiauellum to A cadem ia, ita ut a m aioribus in stitutum an tiq u itu s est, doceri tradique
yevopevov q uod fiat, q u o d in m ore a p u d nonnullos positum sit, oblique 150 curatis om n iq u e studio satagitis? D eclarant hoc m ultiplices conatus uestri
repraesentando et tam en im p ro b an d o oculis subiicere persuasum habent; in eadem academ ia uestra, tam quam filiola e x o rn an d a, longe laudatis-
110 sed contra senioribus q u ibusuis doctoris potius Satyrohistorici personam sim i, d u m tot collegiis de nouo, aliis uero e ru d erib u s excitatis, earn
sustinere u id etu r. C erte eius scripta a p u d q uosdam ta n tu m adm irationis m agis m agisque eruditis hom inibus com pletis, sed e t ’o pe et M aecenatum
m eren tu r ut etiam ediscantur. Ego uero m e rectissim e facturum existi- eidem que 0p£7Etr|pta subinde persoluentium g rata liberalitate quotidie
m aui, si eius im piis et nefariis lem m atib u s (cum ab aliis alio genere sint 155 locupletatis. U nde insignis tenuium adolescentum studiosorum que
refutata) pro me quoque uirili hasce Platonicas epistulas opponerem , id- n u m eru s et q u aed am q u e p ropria p erp etu a ac singularis academ ia in
115 que d u ab u s de causis. P rim u m q u id em u t M achiauellicae im probitatis et academ ia et ab eadem alitur ac su stentatur. E q u a, tam q u am ex equo
nequitiae exem plum in D ionysio Siciliae ty ran no clarissim um om nibus T ro ia n o , subinde tales efflorescant et p ro d ean t, quales Platonem et
ob oculos p o n erem — tale certe, -ut non im m erito dicere possis rj Aiovucno<; D ionem sum m os ac prope hom ines in his epistulis suspicim us et ad-
paxtaj3eXXi'Cei. r\ Maxta^eXXoi; StovuaiaC^i. Q u o d posterius tam en m ulto 160 m ira m u r. Q u i nem pe uniuerso generi h om inum in o m n i loco et partibus
uerissim um esse puto, neque enim m in im am p artem suorum theorem a- R epublicae C h ristian ae am plificandae conseru an d ae et exornandae in-
120 turn M achiauellus ex historia D ionysii ta n q u a m ty ran n ica lerna obser- signem operam et praeclaram nauare q u ean t. Q u id ? Q uod eiusm odi
uare potuit, et uicissim D ionysium in M achiauelli schola tan q u am 7tp<*>- scrip tu m , quale hoc Platonicum est, eorum h o m in u m quod proprium
totU7iov exactissim e agnoscas. N eq u e en im o u u m ouo tam simile est. esse u id etu r, qui toti in eo sunt, ut philosophiae (pro q u a Plato in his
Q u em ad m o d u m a nobis in his epistulis £7iaya>y7] q u ad am in plerisque 165 epistulis tantopere laborat) et optim is artib u s p erp etu o suus honos et
M achiauelli theo rem atib u s cum u ita factisque D ionysii com parads dignitas sarta tectaque conseruetur.
125 d em o n stratu m est et plurib u s ostendi perfacile posset. N eque uero m ihi u eren d u m fuit, ne his Platonicis epistulis offerendis
A ltera deinde causa fuit, ut n o stro ru m h o m in u m anim os, eorum uile q u ip p iam , exiguum et M agnificentiis V estris et A m plitudinibus in-
praesertim qui ad rem publicam g eren d am e d u can tu r, antidoto salutaris digm im offerre uiderer. Q u id est enim P lato n icu m quod non idem sit
m oderatae doctrinae sapien tissim aru m a d m o n itio n u m consiliorum uti- 170 praecellens exim ium singulare et m agnificum ? P au cae sunt epistulae
lissim orum m u n irem et dvTutoXite.up.acTa P latonis D ionysii et M achiauelli fateor, sed reru m quas subiectas hab en t m aiestate et pondere et sum m i
130 Beivolc; Xrjppaat, ut E uripides lo q u itu r, opposita p riu atim et publice philosophi auctoritate m axim ae grauissim ae et praestantissim ae. Plato
m agis com m en d arem , efficerem que u t itoXiteupata D ionysii et enim in his epistulis elaborandis ilium suum canonem (xpelttov itou
M achiauelli tanto m aiori odio et execratione digna iu d icaren tu r, quanto aptxpov eu rj tzoXv p7] ixavaj<; rcepavai, satius est p a ru m et exacte quam
legitim um iustum et m o d eratu m im p eriu m im piae nefariae et uiolentae 175 m u ltu m nec satis nec apte concludere) uel m axim e obseruasse uidetur.
tyran n id i, salutaris recta sana sobria philosophandi ratio, fictae adum - O c c u rrit tan d em m e prim os quosdam ingenii m ei qualescunque foetus
135 b ratae D ionysianae astutiae uafricieique p raestaret. Sed de epistulis iam d u d u m et quidem ante trien n iu m V estris M agnificentiis et A m plitu­
satis. d in ib u s, quibus m e ipsum m eaque om nia debeo, id que lubens fateor, ac
De notis uero quibus illustratae sunt, tan tu m hoc dico: eas m ea opera prae me fero, destinasse. Q ui tam en nescio q u a typographica auaritia et
m eoque labore mei iuris factas esse. De iis ig itur quilibet quod uolet lHO fru stratio n e adhuc alicubi p re m u n tu r et d e tin e n tu r, licet sub praelo iam
statu at, m odo nihil tem ere sed uere ingenue et candide. A lioqui polliceor turn gem ere incepissent.
140 me dvSp’ E7tapuvea0ai. oati? Ttpotepov xaXeTtrjvr]. C o nuersio Ficini est, neque P latonem igitur hoc tem pore ueluti proxenetam uel illarum uigiliarum
 654 P A R T II TEXTS 655

uel aliquando, si D eus optim us m axim us idonea ad earn rem faciet otia, 10 nisi aut ignarus aut inuidus aut superbe fastidiosus tot editiones dam nat?
m aiorum hoc tem pore ad M agnificentias V estras et A m plitudines m itto Q uis eum qui tritici aut uini fructuum ue u b ertatem et ab u n d an tiam
185 rogoque ut eundem pro singulari V estru m M ag nificentiarum et Ampli- respueret non grauissim a dignum reprehensione iudicaret? M ulto certe
tud in u m erga me beneuolentia placide com iterque accipere, et in scholis m inus eru d ito ru m u olum inum copiam aspernari debem us. Ilia enim ad
uestris G raecis, quibus me anno superiori denuo praeesse uoluistis, ali- corpus solum p ertin en t, haec ad an im u m , qui q u an to p raestat corpori,
quid loci concedere, et me m eaque stu d ia et qualecunque operae pretium 15 tanto ea quae ipsi pro p ria sunt rebus corporeis antecellunt. M inim e uero
m eum in hac uestra academ ia co m m en d atu m habere dignem ini. Q uod om nium rep u d ian d a est eorum m ultitudo lib ro ru m q ui de philosophia
190 enim C ato m onuit om nibus otii sui red d en d am esse rationem , id proprie conscripti sunt, sed contra horum affluentia et luxuries quaedam exop-
et uere ad m eum officium erga V estras M agnificentias et A m plitudines tan d a, ut om nes hom ines (quoad fieri possit) dulcissim os fructus perci-
uelut ipyoSuoxTou; et exactores m e a ru m o p eraru m p ertinere existimo. piant philosophiae, q ua nihil utilius, nihil optabilius, nihil praestantius
Q uo ru m liberalitate et honorifica de m e existim atione factum est, ut in ­ 20 reperiri ac ne cogitari quidem potest. H aec enim est lau d an d aru m ar-
ter studiosos literaru m no m en m eum profiteri et de aliquorum studiis tium om nium procreatrix et quasi parens, ars uitae, anim i m edicina,
195 non prorsus m ale, ut o pinor, pro m ea certe uirili iam olim m ereri m entis cultura, quae extrahit uitia radicitus, benefactorum denique om ­
coeperim , et apud M agnificentias V estras et A m plitudines aduersus in- nium et benedictorum m ater. Q u am obrem de hac non im m erito talia
uidiae et m aleuolentiae m ultiplices et petulantissim os im petus et insultus M arcu s Tullius: O uitae philosophia dux, o uirtu tis indagatrix, expul-
praesidium hactenus certum co n stitu tu m h abuerim . V a l e a < n > t 25 trixque uitiorum ! quid non m odo nos, sed om nino uita hom inum sine
M agnificentiae V estrae et A m plitudines. te esse potuisset? T u urbes perperisti, tu dissipatos hom ines in societatem
200 D ata ex m usaeo meo K alendas J u n ii anno M D X X C V I. uitae conuocasti, tu eos inter se prim o dom iciliis, deinde coniugiis, tu
M agnificentiis V estris A m plitu d in ib u s et D om inationibus obser- literaru m et uocum com m unione iunxisti, tu inuentrix legum , tu magis-
uantissim is studiosissim is Ioannes Iacobus B eurer Saccingensis tra m o ru m et disciplinae fuisti. Ad te confugim us, a te opem petim us,
L atin aru m literaru m in A cadem ia uestra professor publicus. 30 tibi nos, ut antea m agna ex parte, sic nunc penitus totosque tradim us.
Est autem un u s dies bene et ex praeceptis tuis actus peccanti im m ortali-
70 c o n s titu e n d a e ed. 110 scen io reb u s sic ed. tati an teponendus. C uius igitur potius opibus u ta m u r q uam tuis, quae
et uitae t r _nquillitatem largita nobis es et terro rem m ortis sustulisti?
22-23 C icero , Brut. 3 1 . 1 2 1 2 4 - 2 6 Ep. V I I 3 2 6 A 7 - B 4 29-30 E p. X , 358C 3-4 38-39
P lin iu s, H . N at. V I I . 3 0 . 1 0 ; u i d A e l i a n . , Var. H ist. I V . 18 130 E u rip id e s, M ed. 119
H aec ille. N on satis igitu r u itu p erari potest m ag n a h o m in u m pars, qui tarn
190 P l u t a r c h u s , Cato lu n . 1 . 5 35 raru m tam que d iu in u m m unus non m odo accipere oblatum non dignan-
tur, sed etiam co n tem n u n t et quasi pedibus conculcant, cum potius sese
non canes aut porcos, qui coeno m agis quam uel pretiosissim is m argaritis
d electantur, sed hom ines esse natos m em inisse ac proinde in haec studia,
87. G ulielm i L aem arii epistula ad editionem suam M arsilianae inter- m axim e om nium hom ine digna, totis uiribus incum bere deberent.
pretationis Platonis op eru m o m n iu m praefixa; de hac editione anno 1590 40 Itaq u e non istis fictis, sed ueris apibus, id est ueris philosophiae alum -
im pressa uid. infra C at. B, no. 136. nis, nostros labores et sum ptus in philosophica scripta recudenda im pen-
dim us. Q uos non infructuosos aut irritos, nec tibi, Lector candide, non
T yp o g rap h u s candido lectori salutem . acceptissim os fore confido. Im pendim us enim non in quoslibet e uulgo
Q u em ad m o d u m cibi q uibus uescim ur, licet iidem quotidie apponan- scriptores, sed in ipsos philosophiae proculdubio principes, Platonem et
tu r, nihilo m inus suaues et iucundi sunt esurientibus, ita doctorum 45 A ristotelem . H u n c quidem non ita pridem ex no stra officina produx-
hom inum libri (sp iritualium escarum penus) quam uis saepius recudan- im us. Ilium uero in praesentia om nibus uerae sapientiae am atoribus por-
tu r et in publico literato ru m conspectu re p o n a n tu r, non propterea non rigim us. Q u an to s, bone D eus, philosophos! De A ristotele plura dicere
pergrati carissim ique sunt iis qui suos h u m an itatis artibus et ingenuis locus non p erm ittit. De Platone pauca ex eodem C icerone et diuo Augus-
disciplinis anim os pascere atque explere cu p iu n t. Q u oties, obsecro, Aris- tino referre operae pretium existim o, ut ad hunc m agis m agisque am an-
totelis D em osthenis H om eri H ippocratis G aleni C iceronis V irgilii Plinii 50 dum atque am plectendum philosophiae candidati tan to ru m uirorum
et aliorum eiusdem notae m o n u m en ta fuere tvpis euulgata? Q uis tam en au ctoritate incitentur.
 656 P A R T II TE X T S 657

Cicero igitur sic in Oratore\ Longe o m nium q uicunque scripserunt, aut Ficini conuersio reliquis om nibus praestare doctiorum iudicio sem per
locuti sunt, et copia dicendi et g rau itate princeps Plato. Ibidem , Platonis 95 uisa est. H u iu s autem eruditissim a arg u m en ta et com m entaria operarum
frequens au d ito r D em osthenes. P rim o De natura deorum: Plato A ristotelis com m oditati nullum tibi, ut spero, incom m odum allaturae consulentes
m agister. Secundo: A udiam us enim P latonem , quasi q u en d am D eum in calcem operis transtulim us, singulis quo p ertin ean t diligenter notatis.
philosophorum , cui duos placet esse m otus, etc. De clarissimis oratoribus: Pro his uero breuem unicuique praefixam dialogo sum m am reposuim us,
Q uis enim ub erio r in dicendo Platone? Iouem sic, ut aiu n t philosophi, q u a thesis et scopus disputationis indicatur. C eteru m paulo m inutioribus
si G raece lo q u atu r, loqui. Tusculams 4: E rrare m ehercule m alo cum 1 00 characteribus usi sum us, turn facilioris gestationis gratia, turn ad
Platone, quern tu q u a n ti facias, scio et quern ex tuo ore a d m iro r, quam tenuioris fortunae em ptores pretii m ediocritate subleuandos. Vale
cum istis uera sentire. T ertio De oratore: Plato non linguae solum , sed nostrisque laboribus feliciter utere ac fruere, et nobis, ubi lapsos
etiam anim i ac u irtu tis m agister. Ib id em , Platonici libri m irab iliter scrip- aduerteris, pro hum an itate tua uelis ignoscere.
ti. Ad Quintum jratrem liber I, epist. 1: A tque ille quidem princeps ingenii
et doctrinae Plato, turn denique fore beatas respublicas p u tau it, si aut
docti, etc. A d Atticum liber 4, epist. 15: Q u o d in iis libris quos laudas, p e r­ 20 p o test] possunt ed. 40 ficu s com. Ricardus T hom as ] facis ed.
sonam desideras Scaeuolae, non earn tem ere dim oui, sed feci idem quod
24-33 C icero , Tusc. V .2 .5 52-33 id em . O ra l. , cap. 19 5 3 -5 4 ib id ., cap . 4 54-55 idem .
in 7roXtT£ta deus ille noster Plato. Secundo De iegibus: Q u am o b rem ille N at. dear. [.3 3 55-56 ib id . 11.12 57-58 id em . Brut. 3 1 .1 2 1 58-60 Tusc
quidem sapientissim us G raeciae uir, longeque doctissim us (Plato) ualde 1 .1 7 .3 9 60-62 De orat. I II.39 62-64 Q. Frat. 1 .1 .1 0 64-66 re u e ra A d Att. IV . 1 6 (8 9 ),
hanc labem ueretu r. ed. S h a c k le to n -B a ile v , 2: 108 66-68 De leg. 1 1 .1 5 3 3 9 70-77 A u g u stin u s, Contra Acad.
III. 1 7 .3 7 77-87 id em , Ciu. Dei V III.4
Q u id uero diuus A ugustinus? L ibro tertio Contra Academicos ita inquit:
Plato uir sapientissim us et eruditissim us tem p orum suorum , qui et ita
locutus est, ut quaecu n q u e diceret, m agna fierent, et ea locutus est, ut
quom odocunque diceret, p a ru a non fierent, d icitur post m ortem Socratis
m agistri sui, quern sin g u lariter dilexerat, a Pythagoreis etiam m ulta 88. Stephani T rem u laei praefatio ad P latonem L atin u m uersione Fici-
didicisse. Et paulo post, Adeo post ilia tem p o ra non longo interuallo om- niana a se denuo recensum , quae praefatio in editione G eneuae anno
nis peruicacia pertin aciaq u e d em o rtu a, osque illud Platonis, quod in 1592 im pressa adseru atu r; uid. C at. B, no. 141.
philosophia purgatissim um est et lucidissim um , dim otis n u b ibus erroris
em icuit, etc. De ciuitate Dei liber 8, cap. 4: Sed inter discipulos Socratis S tephani T rem ulaei ad lectorem praefatio.
non quidem im m erito excellentissim a gloria claruit, qui om nino ceteros Q u a n tu m ad u eram solidam que philosophiam conferat Plato, nemo
obscuraret, Plato. Q u i cum esset A theniensis, honesto apud suos loco sanae m entis qui uel leuiter illius scripta delibasset u n q u am dubitauit, ita
natus, et ingenio m irabili longe suos condiscipulos an teiret, parum ut qui uelit in illius laudes excurrere, is in re non necessaria
tam en putans perficiendae philosophiae sufficere se ipsurh ac Socraticam 5 superuacaneam operam ponere lectorum que otio abuti m erito uideatur,
disciplinam , qu am longe lateque p o tu it pereg rinatus est, quaq u au ersu s nec iniu ria illud audiat quod eum laudet quern nem o u itu p erat. Ita enim
eum alicuius nobilitate scientiae percipiendae fam a rapiebat. Et paulo in p ro m p tu est quae ex illius scriptis percipi potest utilitas, u t nem ine in-
post: Socrates in actiua excelluisse m e m o ra tu r, P ythagoras u ero m agis dicante ilia ultro et sponte se offerat, auctorem com m endet, et aduersus
contem platiuae, q u ib u s potuit intelligentiae u iribus, institisse. Proinde m aleuolorum obtrectationes tu te tu r et defendat. Ingenii praeterea illius
Plato, u tru m q u e iungendo, philosophiam perfecisse lau d atu r. H aec 10 ta n ta fuit praestantia et elegantia, tan ta doctrinae uarietas, tan ta ora-
D iuus A ugustinus. tionis ubertas, tan ta suauitas, ut ad eum pro m erito laudandum alio
Ilium ipsum Platonem tibi, candide L ector, exhibem us, non spirantem P latone opus sit, quique ad diuitem illam et uberem ingenii uenam non
quidem am plius, sed adhuc tam en in his libris quodam m odo uiuentem accedens laudes illius persequi aggrediatur, is profecto illas ingenii sui
et eorum a quibus consulitur, m entes uerae philosophiae lum inibus il- culpa d etritu ru s sit potius quam exornaturus.
lustrantem . Exhibem us, inquam , ut exhiberi conuenit, nem pe ad emen- 15 Ecquid uero cuiusquam com m endatione accedere aut uituperatione
datio ra exem plaria q u a n ta m axim a fieri potuit attentione expressum ac d etrahi potest laudibus uiri illius, quern om nis uetustas sem per adm irata
effictum , et probatissim a in terp retatio n e co m itatum . N am M arsilu est, praedicauit, et in coelum sustulit? Ex cuius schola tam quam ex equo
658 P A R T II TEXTS 659

T ro ian o prope om nes p h ilosophorum fam iliae in diuersas postea senten- (30 me potissim um in stitu ta est praefatio. Sicut enim m inim e d ubium est,
tias et sectas distractae prollu x eru n t? Q uern C icero lum en illud alterum uti dixim us, utilissim um et grauissim um auctorem esse P latonem , ita
ingeniorum et cuius testim o n iu m in star non m odo m u lto ru m m illium , etiam illud ex tra controuersiam positum est, om nino necessarium fuisse
sed o m nium esse debeat sem per in ore h ab u it, im itatus est et expressit, ut tan tu s tarn u aria tam que m ultiplici eruditione refertus auctor e
ilium principem et D eum P hilosophorum subinde uocans, eiusque aucto- G raecia in L atium , hoc est e G raeco in L atinum serm onem , transfer-
ritatem tanti faciens ut m alle se dicat e rrare cum Platone q u am cum 65 retu r. Q u o tu sq u isq u e enim e studiosis est cui otium libri praeceptores,
ceteris bene sentire. Q u o d uero de illo g rauius iudicium expectam us quae quidem sunt lin g u aru m et scientiarum d iscendarum instrum enta,
quam quod de ipso u ir acerrim i et m agni ad m iraculum usque ingenii ita o p p o rtu n e et ab u n d e suppetant, ut tantam linguae G raecae cogni-
Aristoteles fecit, qui q u an ti fecerit Platonis eru d itio n em eo ipso satis tionem sibi possit co m parare q u a n ta req u iritu r ad P latonem et alios eius
ostendit, quod iam trigesim um aetatis an n u m agens, ut refert D iogenes generis auctores, ut nusq u am haereat, intelligendos? M ultis, etiam si nec
L aertius, se illi in disciplinam in totos septendecim annos trad id erit, et 70 ista ad iu m e n ta nec ingenium desit, non est tam en consilium in linguis
is quidem , etsi a praeceptore in nonnullis dissensit— im m o uero ilium addiscendis tem pus ponere quia ad altiora et scientias ipsas statim
interdum iniquius insectatus est— u id e tu r tam en potius ex eius insecta- ad sp iran t, qui om nes uberrim o et am plissim o fructu qui a studiosis ex
tione, quia m agni faciebat et ab aliis m erito m agni fieri u id eb at, illius in- Platonis lectione colligi potest p riu a re n tu r, nisi is in L atin u m serm onem
genium sibi gloriam q u aerere uoluisse qu am iustam ilium rep reh en d en d i conuersus fuisset. Q u a m ob causam num q u am satis pro m erito a nobis
in m ultis occasionem habuisse. 75 collaudari poterit studium labor et industria quam superiori saeculo in
Sed iam p raeter in stitu tu m facio, qui in laudes illius uiri d igrediar hac p alaestra felicissime posuit uir undeq u aq u e doctissim us et sum m us
quas non attigisse p raestat, qu am non satis pro dignitate exequi. Nec philosophus M arsilius Ficinus, qui in hoc opere (Platonis uersionem in-
uero etiam nobis p ropositum est in praesen tia de illius in om ni parte telligo) cum prim us illam aggressus sit, ceteros om nes non solum
philosophiae d ogm atibus et placitis in q uibus cum ipso A ristoteles con- a n teu ertit, sed om nibus qui post ipsum idem ten tare uellent palm am
sentiat aut ab illo dissentiat, quo d en iq u e scribendi genere fecundissim i 80 p raerip u it, p rim usque Platonis uersionem et suscepisse et, quantum
sui ingenii in u en ta posteritati co m m en d arit, q u icq u am dicere; sicuti nec quidem ab hom inibus pro ut nunc sunt perfici potuit, pertecisse uidetur.
m odo consilium est respondere ad putidas im peritorum q u o ru n d am Nec m iru m sane. N am quae ad earn rem cum laude p raestandam neces-
calum nias et obtrectationes, qui h u m a n io ru m scientiarum hostes tan tu m saria esse u id eb an tu r ad iu m en ta illi abunde ad fu eru n t. Fuit enim in illo
tam que praeclare de studiis praesertim philosophiae m eritu m auctorem su m m a G raecae linguae cognitio; habuit eiusdem linguae peritissim os et
ex m anibus studiosorum cum aliis in n u m eris optim is scriptoribus extor- 85 doctissim os uiros quos ilia aetas tulit quibuscum de locis difficilioribus
quere co n an tu r. Ex p arte enim haec iam a m agnis uiris p raestita sunt qui conferre posset. Q u o ru m quidem uiro ru m com m em oratis nom inibus in
uel illius uitam co n scripserunt uel defensionem aduersus m aleuolorum et p raefatiu n cu la ad lectorem adiuncta epistolae ad L au ren tiu m M edi-
im perito ru m insectationes susceperunt, turn horum singula ut propriam caeum ad m o n u it se ipsorum consilio et censura usum esse in Platonis
et peculiarem ex professo tractatio n em re q u iru n t, ita satis am plam uersione edenda. Sed quod m axim um et praecip u u m est ad quem cunque
singulis libris m ateriam sug g eru n t. Illud o b iter et in tran scu rsu dum tax- 90 auctorem feliciter u erten d u m ut optim e illius sensa et m entem noris, hoc
at, dum alio festinat oratio m ea, d ix erim — quod concessurus m ihi con- ille ita assecutus erat in Platone crebra et assidua ipsius lectione, ut nem o
fido — : q u icu n q ue in u triu sq u e scriptis, Platonis nem pe et A ristotelis, illius m en tem m elius calluerit aut callere possit q uam ipse Ficinus calluit;
praeceptoris et discipuli, diligentius fu erin t u ersati, ea quae in artis for- ita in ipso in n u tritu s im biberat illius in u n aq u aq u e re sententias, ut si
m am accu rata m ethodo, q u am etiam a p raeceptore didicerat, ab Aristo- u era essent deliria ilia peTepcJwx^01^ quae a P y th ag o ra accepta Plato ex-
tele redacta et in u erb o ru m co m pendia ex ilia latissim e paten te et in 95 coluit, m erito Platonis an im a transfusa in Ficini corpus atque in Ficino
om nes partes diffusa d isp u tatio n u m et orationis copia, q u am Plato his terris Plato post tot saecula redditus fuisse credi posset. C eterum
secutus est, co n tracta su n t, in Platonis libris passim sparsa in u en tu m iri; Ficini q u am is ex hoc opere sibi p arau erat gloriam , iam satis per se il-
ita ut si ilia A ristoteli dem as quae a praeceptore accepisse didicisse et lustrem , auxit et m ire illustrauit q u o ru n d am qui post ilium idem cu r­
hausisse ex suo cum illo consensu in iis rebus d e p reh en d itu r, pauca ad- riculum conficere aggressi sunt et melius aliquid praestare se posse
m odum ilia, in quibus ab ipso dissidet et quae illi ut p ro p ria sunt tribuen- 100 sp eraru n t infelicissim us conatus; qui quidem prolecto m elius iam ae suae
da, reliqua sint futura. Iam itaque transeo ad illud cuius g ratia haec a et existim ationi consuluissent, si aut onus cui sustinendo im pares erant
 660 P A R T II TEXTS 661

num q u am suscepissent aut, si pares e ra n t, m elius sustinuissent. Parco il- lineam entis u u ltu coloribus denique om nibus orationis totum nobis per-
lorum nom ini et cuperem ut non tam facile etiam nobis no m in a reticen- 145 fecte expressisset, uti plane L atinus a G raeco nihil differret, eundem que
tibus intelligeres, lector, q u in am illi sint. S unt sane am ici nostri et ea nucleum , eodem tegm ine et cortice u estitum nobis exhibuisset. Sed haec
105 cum linguae G raecae cognitione, turn ingenii acum ine ad philosophiam fuit ingenii T u llian i, sicut aliae m ultae in aliis rebus, ita in transferendis
intelligendam , ut de illis hoc polliceri au d eam , nec neg ab u n t qui illos au cto rib u s G raecis in L atin u m serm onem , p ro p ria et peculiaris laus.
norin t, ipsos, si hoc opere non ita cursim et p ra e cip itan ter defuncti essent Q u a m nobis optare licet, sed ut ilia cuiquam contigerit post ipsum uereor.
sed ad ipsum et otium et atten tio n em q u am re q u ireb at auctoris ipsius 150 N am e x titeru n t et existunt hodie nonnulli qui eo ru m quae necessaria
grauitas et reru m difficultas ad h ib u issen t, q u am u is Ficinum ipsum sunt in perfecto interprete, qualem Plato in prim is req u irit, ita singula
110 aequare au t superare non p o tuissent, saltern lectoribus studium et uel aliqua consecuti sunt, ut reliquis careant: est qui sensus Platonis
diligentiam pro b atu ro s fuisse, quod s u s < q u e > deque habentes, dum ten eat, sed non habeat facultatem illam L atini serm onis quam habuit
liberum quoddam et elegans ut ipsis q u id em u id etu r uerten d i genus sec- T u lliu s, au t, si aliquo m odo h abeat, non ea u aleat ingenii agilitate
tan tu r, infinitis locis P latonis m en tem et sensus c o r r u < m > p e r u n t ac 155 q u a flum en illud et V ertu m n u s ut om nem form am orationis possit
d ep ra u a ru n t, nec solum alium aut d iu ersu m ab eo quern ipse uoluit, sed effingere; est qui cum in istis duobus m ultum p o ssit,'n o n habeat tam en
115 plane co n trariu m nobis sensum re d d id e ru n t. philosophicum ingenium aut iudicium . Q u i itaque o m n ia ilia simul corn-
Sed haec quidem hactenus, qu ae rogo aequos lectores ut in earn plexus sit, qu em ad m o d u m M arcus T ullius, iteru m dico me non exis-
partem in te rp re te n tu r quasi a m e dicta sint, non insectandi cuiusquam tim are q u em q u am extitisse post ipsum . Sed cum illud secundarium sit
gratia sed ueritatis studio, ut om nes etiam intelligant q u an ti facienda fit, 160 in uotis, ut, postquam quae ueh em en ter o p tam u s consequi nobis non
prae hac noua, Ficini uersio, q u a q u id em in hoc genere nihil accuratius d a tu r, saltern ex iis quae habere possum us o p tim a seligam us; in hac
120 et perfectius exstare posse iudico et eiusm odi esse ut in arce sicut ilia in g en io ru m et interp retu m uarietate, cum alii lidelius et uerius sensum
M in e ru a Phidiae m erito collocari deb eat. Q u o d si quis obiiciat Ficini et m entem auctoris red d an t, sed sim pliciore et m in u s eleganti stilo, alii
uersionem , ut Platonis m entem fldeliter red d at et ex prim at, rudem liberius et elegantius in te rp re te n tu r, sed saepius reced an t a m ente auc-
tam en et incultam esse m u ltu m q u e abesse ab ea elegantia et uenustate 165 toris aut non satis ipsam ex p rim an t, eos longe antep o n en d o s censeo in
quae in G raeco P latonis serm one elucet q u am q u e nec im m erito ita sunt quouis au cto ru m genere uertendo qui m agis solliciti sunt de fldeliter
125 adm irati ueteres ut dixerint Iouem non alia q u am Platonis lingua red d en d a auctoris sui m ente q u am de orationis cultu et orn atu . Idque,
locuturum esse si G raece loqui uoluisset— ita enim u erb o ru m puritate si in quibusuis auctoribus sequendum est, turn uero m ulto magis in
nitet et perpetuis m etaphoris ta n q u a m gem m is q u ib u sd am distincta est philosophis, qui aptis ut plu rim u m et propriis uocabulis quod uolunt
Platonis oratio ut nihil su p ra — hoc in q u a m qui obiecerit etiam satisfac- 170 significant, ita ut si interpretis m u n ere fungens non expresseris propriam
tum esse uolum us. O p ta n d u m sane u t talis P latoni interpres posset con- et n atiu am significationem eius uocabuli quod p rim a riu m est in senten-
130 tingere qui non solum illius m en tem et sensus, sed etiam serm onis tia, totius loci sensum am ittas ac proinde etiam lectorem circa rei de qua
leporem et uenu statem L atin a lin g u a re p raesen taret. Q u o d u n u m M a r­ a g itu r cognitionem in errorem inducas. Q u a m o b re m unus instar om ­
cum T u lliu m p raestitu ru m fuisse existim au erim , si, ut quosdam eius n ium debet esse studiosis Platonis interpres Ficinus, q u an d o talem qualis
locos adm irabili felicitate u ertit, to tu m P lato n em uertisset. In prooem io 175 fuisset M arcu s T ullius si ipsum uertisset nancisci non possunt. N am que
quidem lib ro ru m De finibus negat se ad h u c to tu m P latonem au t Aristote- is et fldeliter m entem Platonis et ita perspicue red d id it, ut, quam quam
135 lem uertisse, sed sibi tam en, ne faciat, in terd ictu m non p u tare, locos in ter G raecos auctores non sit ad m o d u m difficilis Plato quod ad uoces
uero quosdam , si u id eretu r, se tra n sla tu ru m professus est. Q uod fecit, attin et, non m inus sit facilis— atque h au d scio an etiam aliquantum
sed et ex particulis illis quas ipsius scriptis insertas habem us, facile est in- facilior ad intelligendum — L atin a uersio L atine scientibus quam G raecus
telligere quale fu turu m fuisset to tu m et in teg ru m corpus, si ab eo hoc 180 textus G raeci serm onis peritis. Sed nec in Ficini serm one quid m erito
agente duo illi principes philosophorum integri uersi essent. E a enim rep reh en d i possit uideo: uocabula sunt b ona et L a tin a exceptis paucis,
140 facilitate et flexibilitate ingenii fuit M arcu s T u llius, ita L atini serm onis ad m o d u m fluit oratio, m inim e h o rrid a et b a rb a ra est— qualis scholas-
om nes V eneres et gratias callebat, ad quae etiam linguae G raecae et phi- ticorum illorum qui p atru m nostro ru m m em o ria A ristotelicam philo­
losophiae praesertim A cadem iae ta n ta m cognitionem ad iu n x erat, ut, si sophiam in m eram b arb ariem tra n sfo rm a ru n t— , non diffluit, non luxu-
Platonem integrum uertisset, ilium non solum sensibus et sententiis, sed 185 riat, non am bitus uerb o ru m et periodorum co n q u irit, sed num quid hoc

.............
 662 P A R T II T E X TS 663

ad u itu p eratio n em in terpretis debet conu erti quod illi potius sum m ae prim is ap u d ilium obseru an d a et ad q u a tu o r p a rtiu m philosophiae,
laudi tribui p a r est? nem pe dialecticae physicae ethicae et m etaphysicae, aliquam referenda,
V eru m en im u ero etsi prope o m nem o ptim i interpretis laudem asse- 230 p ro u t hae partes, nude sim pliciter et sine allegoriis a Platone, deinde ab
cutus fuit Ficinus, tam en m inim e dissim u lan d u m est q u in , ut hom o fuit A ristotele diligenter excultae sunt. N am allegorica ilia et tractationes de
190 et h u m a n u m est in m ultis labi e rrare et decipi, aliquot in locis lapsus d iuino, de intelligentiis et daem onum u aria n a tu ra , quibus Platonis
fuerit et a m ente P latonis tota uia, ut d icu n t, in terd u m a b e rra n t, siue in terp retes P o rp h y riu s Iam blichus et alii illius philosophiam sim plicem et
quod non ita em endatos codices ut nunc h abem us h ab u it, siue quod in non ita difficilem o b scu raru n t et c o n tam in aru n t, ipsi affingentes ea de
tanto opere q u an tu m u is atten to et peruigili in terp reti non possit non 235 qu ib u s ille n u m q u am cogitauit, u an a sunt, in an ia et a uerae solidaeque
obrepere in terd u m som nus. Q u ae causa im pulit iam olim doctissim os philosophiae studiosis, ut pestes et carnificinae ingeniorum penitus
195 uiros et in prim is Sim onem ilium G rv n a e u m , sui tem poris literatorum explodenda. Platoni enim q u am q u am de rebus d iuinis et de deo subli-
decus, ut non d u b ita re n t uersionem illam recognoscere et m endis repur- m ius et sanctius quam ceteri om nes philosophi disserat, unde m erito
gare. Q u o d , cum ab illis ita p raestitu m fuerit ut nonnulla adhuc superes- d iu in i philosophi nom en obtinuit, etsi etiam n o n n u m q u a m plus aequo
sent. equidem rogatus a tvpographo, cum p a ra re t editionem hanc m inori 240 suis figm entis indulget, ista deliria et som nia qu ae illi [xexewpoXeaxat ipsi
form a, prou in ciam suscepi uersionis F icinianae cum G raeco textu dili- a ttrib u u n t in m entem u n q u am uenisse nullo m odo credibile est.
200 genter conferendae et. si alicubi uitiosa esset, em en d an d ae. Q u o d eo D ialogos eodem ordine hac editione disposuim us quo in superioribus
libentius fecim us, quod nec studiosis philosophiae inutilem nostram hanc erat dispositi, nisi quod, ut quoad fieri posset aeq u aliter in tres tomos
operam fore duxim us, nec nobis infructuosam , cum ex hac iterata Pla­ d istrib u e n tu r, in secundum tom um contulim us epistolas et dialogos qui
tonis lectione eorum quae apud ilium olim legissem us m em oria renouari 245 non pro legitim um h ab en tu r, cum in aliis editionibus in finem operis
et confirm ari posset. Q u id a nobis praestitu m sit, tu u m , L ector, erit haec solita fuerint reiici.
205 iudicium ; sane hoc uere profiteri possum us, nos ea quae em endauim us A rg u m e n ta Ficini etiam suis locis singula suis dialogis praefixim us.
non sine m axim a cautione ac prope religione em endasse, et, quam uis C u m u ero a nobis typographus postulasset u t de ipsis argum entis, quae
occu rreren t in terd u m aliqua u ocabula m inus p ro p ria et ap ta, nihil in te rd u m prolixiora esse uid eren tu r, aliqua q u ae m inus necessaria essent
m utasse, nisi q u and o Ficinus uisus est nobis L atin a cum G raecis dili- 250 dem erem u s ad m in u en d a uolum inum m olem quo ea facilius com pingi et
genter conferentibus a sensu P latonis longius recedere. Q u o d , u t facilius circum gestari possent, diu m u ltum que d u b ita u im u s an id facere expe-
210 iudicare possit beneuolus lector et p eritu s linguae G raecae si libuerit illi diret. T a n d e m uero ita nobis uisum est q u aed am posse tolli— non q ui­
nostras em endationes cum G raeco textu conferre, ne quis nos uersionem dem ex om nibus, sed quibusdam d u m tax at sine in iu ria ulla Ficini aut
Ficini, d um eius uitia sanare c o n am u r, contam inasse m erito conqueri etiam d am n o d etrim entoue lectorum — allegorica n im iru m ilia et aliena
possit aut etiam putet inanem et falsum esse titulum operis qui locorum 255 a m ente P latonis, quae Ficinus in terd u m — d u m plus aequo indulget et
m ulto ru m em en d atio n em prae se ferat, locos em endatos a nobis dis- trib u it illis interp retib u s de quibus paulo an te aliquid dixim us et quos
215 tinxim us et inclusim us lineolis hac form a uncinatis [ ]. qu id em ille diu diligenterque u e rsa u e ra t— suis com m entariis aspersit et
P raeterea, q u ia ob longas inductiones et frequentes digressiones in seru it, ne fru stra tem pus illud quod in ipsis legendis posuerat collocasse
quibus a b u n d a t Plato non facile est cuiuis intelligere quo quaeque sibi u id e re tu r, ea in q u am sustulim us, q u an d o id com m ode fieri posse
referenda sint, uisum est, q u a n tu m q u id em libri form a passa est, breues 260 nobis u isum est, et m axim e cum sacrosancta m y steria nostrae religionis
notas ad m arg in em adiicere quae cuiusque disputationis sum m am et C h ristia n a e m iscet cum som niis et deliriis— ita enim m ihi liceat cum
220 scopum indicarent. Ita ut earu m n o ta ru m ductu lector non im peritus b o n a u en ia lectoris appellare, non dicam P latonis, cum is de illis ne per
artis logicae, et praecipue eius partis quae docet de q u acu m q u e re pro- in so m n iu m quidem cogitarit, sed in terp retu m ipsius.
babiliter in u tram q u e partem disserere, locos denique trad it argum en- A tque u t eo m elius intelligas, beneuole lector, q u an to tibi lucro sit
torum q uibus qu id q u e adstru i uel destru i possit (quam quidem partem 265 fu tu ra iactu ra illarum n u g aru m , ne quid g rauius d icam , locum unum ex
Plato im prim is excoluit) facile possit dialogos in conclusiones tarn pri- quo de ceteris sim ilibus facilius possis iudicium facere proferam . Plato
225 m arias qu am secundarias, turn ea ex q u ib u s illae conclusiones conficiun- libro sexto De republica praeclara sane analogia ostendit intellectum
tur, retexere. A tque eadem opera de u n a fidelia duos parietes dealbantes n o stru m eodem m odo se habere ad intelligibilia, hoc est uere entia, quo
ostendim us quis fructus ex Platone p raecipue colligendus sit, quae in se habet oculus ad res uisibiles, atque inde efficit, quom odo oculus noster
 664 TE X TS 665
P A R T II

270 non potest ista uisibilia perspicere sine lum ine solis quo illustrante aerem 19-22 Cicero, N a t . d e a r . 11.12 23-24 idem, Tu.sC . 1.17.39 27-28 Diogenes Laertius
.6 125-126 Cicero, B r u t . 31.121 133-136 idem, Fin. 1.3.7 225-226 cf. Cicero, F a m .

>>
solem ipsum in tu e tu r et res hasce uisibiles, ita m entis nostrae et intellec- I I . 29.2 267 Plato, R e p . V I, 508A 286 Jo. 1:1-3
tus oculum beneficio superni et caelestis lum inis, quod ab eo qui est idem
in intelligibili loco quod Sol in uisibili, nem pe a D eo O p tim o M axim o
p ro m an at, cum reliqua uere entia turn D eum ipsum lum inis illius paren-
275 tern et auctorem intelligere. Q u ia eo loco P lato appellat lum en illud, quo
illu m in am u r superne ad intelligenda ea quae uere su n t et illum inationem
illam quae fit a superno lum ine in m en tib u s nostris, prolem et foetum
inuisibilis et intelligibilis solis, Ficinus an n o ta u it in arg u m en to , eos qui
Platonici ap p ellan tu r secutus, P latonem p er filium et prolem illam intel-
280 lexisse Filium ilium Dei aetern u m nobis p atefactum in S cripturis qui est
im ago P atris et ch aracter Personae Eius. A page nugas istas! Platoni
quid q u am h o ru m in m entem u enire potuisse? N am etsi locus ille Platonis
a nobis m odo com m em o ratu s possit m erito accom m odari Filio illi aeter-
no Dei qui est lum en de lum ine et est lux ilia quae ab initio illum inat
285 om nem hom inem u en ien tem in h unc m u n d u m , u t est prim o capitulo
Euangelii secu n d u m sanctum Io an n em , etsi etiam non diffitear P latonem
longe su p ra ceteros philosophos ad D eum ascendisse et de ipso m elius et
sanctius m ulto sensisse, nec non etiam yvtoaxov illud xou 9 eoC, quod ex
rebus uisibilibus cognosci potest, p u riu s et u berius q u am alios om nes qui
290 sap ien tu m nom en sibi u in d ic a ru n t cognouisse, siue ex A egyptiorum
sacerdotibus qui aliquam de uero D eo notitiam ex populi Israelitici in
A egypto com m oratione acceptam p o tu e ru n t retinere siue aliunde accepe-
rit, ut is u n q u a m cogitarit de sacrosancto illo d iuinae T rin ita tis m ysterio,
quod nobis in S cripturis p atefactum est, obscurius quidem in V eteri,
295 apertius in N ouo T estam en to , id fortiter pernego, et m ihi assensuros
confido om nes qui u erae pietatis et eius reu erentiae quae a nobis uerbo
Dei et caelesti d octrinae in ipso reuelatae d e b etu r gustum aliquem ha-
bent. A tque haec quidem et eiusdem prope generis alia non n u lla cum ex
q u ib u sd am Ficini arg u m en tis su stulerim us, non est m eo quidem iudicio
300 cur q uispiam eorum qui C h ristian am religionem ex anim o u e n e ra n tu r a
nobis Ficini scriptis in iu riam factam au t lectoribus d am n u m ullum illa-
tum esse c o n q u e ra tu r. A rg u m en ta in Conuiuium et Timaeum, qu ia prope
sunt instar iusti com m en tarii, etsi m u lta in illis sunt allegorica nec usque
adeo Firma et solida, non uisu m est attingere.
305 Et hacten u s q uidem lab o r noster in hac editione Platonis uersatus est,
quern ut aequi b onique consulas, beneuole lector, rogam us, confirm ante
te hac M arsilii Ficini uersione, q uom odo iam a nobis recognita est,
u ten tem in 'P lato n is lectione inoffenso cursu p errectu ru m et ad eius in-
telligentiam prope nihil d esid eratu ru m .
P A R T III

CATALOGS
 A
C E N S U S O F M A N U S C R IP T S

T h e purpose of the present census is to docum ent the diffusion and influ­
ence of R enaissance translations of Plato, and to provide a solid basis for
the prep aratio n of critical editions, where these m ay be thought necessary
or desirable. T his being the case, I have not felt obliged to provide a full
codicological description of each m anuscript, which is in any case the
province of a professional bibliographer, but have instead confined my
atten tio n to the location, shelf-m ark, and folios of the relevant texts, the
m aterial on which it is w ritten (paper [cart.] or p archm ent [m br.]), the
approxim ate date, and w hatever other inform ation was readily available
from printed catalogues or from my own inspection about the
m a n u sc rip t’s decoration, scribes, owners, place of o rigin, and date. C ol­
ophons have been transcribed only w hen not given in the printed
catalogues; all dates except those in transcribed colophons are in m odern
style. I have noted as well the chief catalogs and secondary works in
w hich these m anuscripts are described or discussed. T h e m anuscripts are
listed in alphabetical order by the English nam e of the cities where they
are located.
In a task such as this, com pleteness is a thing ra th e r to be wished than
hoped for; I have, nevertheless, aim ed at such com pleteness as the pres­
ent state of bibliography perm its. I have used as a guide P. O .
K risteller's Latin Manuscript Books, 3rd edn. (New Y ork, 1965), with the
supplem ents o fG . D ogaer {Scriptorium 22 [1968], pp. 84-86); C . H . Lohr
(.Scriptorium 26 [1972], pp. 343-348; G. P hilippart and J . N oret (.Analecta
Bollandiana, reports after 1970); and F. D olbeau and P. P etitm engin, In­
dices librorum: Catalogues anciens et modernes de manuscrits medievaux en ecriture
latine, 1977-1983 (Paris, 1987). F u rth er bibliographical references to
m an u scrip t catalogs were provided by V irginia Brow n, G eorg Nicolaus
K n au er, and Sigrid K raem er. F. E dw ard C ra n z kindly put at my
disposal before publication his Microfilm Corpus of the Indexes to Printed
Catalogues of Latin Manuscript Books before 1600 and o th er bibliographical
“ sub p ro jects” of the Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum. I should
also like to acknowledge the help of V irg in ia B row n, G eorg Nicolaus
K n au er, Elfriede K n au er, and M ary Louise L ord in checking C ra n z ’s
Microfilm Corpus oj Unpublished Inventories of Latin Manuscript Books through
1600 A .D . (341 microfilm reels). Prof. K n au er has been particularly
generous in com m unicating Plato references to me from his own surveys
 670 P A R T HI CA TA LO G S 671

of h andw ritten and published m an u scrip t catalogs. I have supplem ented Handlist of MSS in the Nat’l Library of Wales, 1 (1940), p. 2; Mann, lMU 18
this inform ation with the lists of P. O . K risteller in the Iter (q .v .), and (1975): 151-152; Iter 3058E ts; Kristeller (1985), p. 163; above, p. 96.
was allowed, thanks to the kindness of Professor K risteller, to read
*2] BARCELONA, Biblioteca de Catalunya 624. Cart., s. XV 4/4, 179 leaves.
through the 9000-page typescript co n tain in g the co n tinuation of that tru ­ Scholar’s copy; two humanistic cursive hands, corrections and notabilia in a
ly m onu m en tal w ork. Professor K risteller also m ade available to me third contemporary hand. From the library of En Pau Ignasi Dalmases i Ros
some m anuscript notes of the late L udw ig B ertalot (now deposited at the (d. 1718), no. 182'.
Istituto Storico G erm an ico in R om e), w hich w ere of considerable service ff. Ir-XVIv: Diogenes Laertius, Vita Platonis, tr. Cassarino. ff. XVIIr-XXv:
to me at an early stage of m y work. Cassarino, Isagogicon in Platonis vitam et disciphnam. ff. XXIr-CLXXIXv: Rep.,
T h e census lists, in principle, all m anu scrip ts know n to me of the Latin tr. Cassarino.
translations of Plato m ade betw een 1400 an d 1600, w hether com plete or Butlleti de la Bibl. de Catalunya 3 (1916): 46; Guia de la Bibl. Central de la Diputacion
fragm entary copies. It includes all the dialogues contained in the nine Provincial de Barcelona, p. 78; Iter 4896D ts.
T hrasvllan tetralogies, the stan d ard g roup of Spuria (De msto, De uirtute,
3] BASEL, Oeffentliche Bibliothek der Universirat K.IV.29. Described in the
Demodocus, Sisyphus, Eryxias, Axiochus1), the Halcyon,2 and the Defimtiones. olcl handwritten inventory of Joh. Zwinger, but now missing from the library.
It excludes the FLpt c[)U^a^ xat cpuatop of p seu do-T im aeus Locrus, the
medieval m edical, alchem ical, and astrological works a ttrib u ted to Plato, Ep. , tr. Bruni
spurious epistles han d ed dow n in ancient or B yzantine epistolaria Iter 6558E ts.
(Epistulae Socraticorum, Epistulae Theophylacti Simocattae, etc.), the poem s a t­
*4 ] BERGAMO, Biblioteca Civica A VI 35. Mbr., misc., s. XV 1/2, 172
tributed to Plato in the Greek Anthology, an d all excerpts, auctoritates, dicta, leaves. 2 humanistic book-hands, contemporary coat-of-arms with the motto
sententiae, and sim ilar item s.3 It om its the fragm ent of the Symposium "Rectum velle"; decorated initials (N. Italian).
translated in a letter of B runi to C osim o d e ’M edici (E p. V II. 1) where this ff. 86r-124r: Grg. , tr. Bruni, with the subtitle “ De irridendis oratoribus’’. ff.
fragm ent is h anded dow n as p art of B ru m 's Epistolario; I have however 125r-162v: Phd. , tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 166r-l72v: Cri. , tr. Bruni, first ver­
indicated those m anuscripts w here the text ap pears as an extravagansA I sion, fragmentary at the end.
exclude in principle collections of excerpts, th ough I have occasionally Cremaschi, Aevum 30 (1956): 550-553; Iter 7700D ts; above, pp. 51, 56.
departed from this rule w hen the com piler of the excerpts was iden­
tifiable, or the com pilation seem ed of p articu lar interest. * 5 ] ----- , A II 32. Cart., misc., s. XV 4/4, 146 leaves. Various hands. From
I have m arked with an asterisk (*) all item s I have inspected in situ; Conte Antonio Brembati (fl. 1855).
with a cross ( + ) item s seen only on m icrofilm . f. 59r: Ep. X and XII only, tr. Bruni.
Iter 1 : 13-14D.
+ 1 | ABERYSTWYTH, National Library of Wales, Peniarth 336A (Hengwrt
220). Mbr., misc., s. XV tried., bastarda script, English or Flemish decoration. *6 ] BERGAMO, Biblioteca Capitolare (deposited in the Biblioteca Civica)
Fly-leaf: "Robert ap John ap Wyllam his booke". Cap. 941, fasc. 1. Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2, 30 pages. Various hands, leaves
numbered irregularly.
pp. 208-227: Socrates de morte contemnenda (i.e.. ,4x., tr. Cencio de’Rustici),
with a preface to Reginaldus Boulers, Bp. of Hereford (1450-1453), inc. Magna ff. 28r-29r: Phd. , tr. Bruni, preface only.
profecto et exquisita diligencia (i.e., Cencio’s preface to Giordano Orsini [Text Iter 7734D ts.
2 2 ], with a few minor changes).

+ 7] BERLIN (WEST), Staatsbibliothek Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz

Lat. fol. 495. Mbr., s. XV, 113 leaves, numbered twice. Italian gothic
1 Sometimes now attributed to Aeschines Socratius. Ficino attributed the text to
bookhand; notabilia in several gothic cursive hands. Acquired by SB in 1889.
Xenoc rates. in which attribution he was followed by Guillaume Poste! a n d Joannes Dugo See no. 174.
Philonius: see above, p. 307 and note.
ff. 37r-59r (52r-74r): Phd. , tr. Bruni, without preface, fragmentary at the begin­
’ Xow attributed to Leon the Academic; see App. b.
' See Cat. ('.
ning (first folio missing), ff. 65v-70r (80v-85r): Cri, tr. Bruni, first version.
‘ For manuscripts containing Brum letters, see I.. Guaido Rosa and P ^ 111- 1 • 1. 70r-v (85r-v): Ap. , tr. Bruni, first version, beginning and ending parts only.
l - . f m / i i t a n i i /it L e o n n r d i B r u m : C r n s n n r n t a d e l c o r i u i . 1 vols.. forthcoming.
Bertalot 2: 270; Iter 3: 474E; above, p. 51.
672 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 673

8]----- , Lat. lol. 557. Cart., misc., s. XV, 233 leaves. Written in Italy, several Leonardus Arretinus Florentiae added by forger ovenreal scribe’s name] excripsit [.nc]
humanistic cursive hands, one of which may belong to Daniel Furlanus sibi et cui Deus dederit adesse XI Kal. Octobr. MCCCCXXXVI Florentiae (?).
Formerly Morbio 403. Bene valeas qui legis.”
If. 201v-208v: Cri. , tr. Bruni, first version. ff. 49r-72v: Ep., tr. Bruni.
Mever-Simonsleld, Verzeichms einer Sammlung wertvoller Hss. und Buecher des Meyer-Simonsfeld, Verzeichms, pp. 28-29; Iter 3: 488-489.
Herrn Cav. Carlo Morbio in Mailand (Leipzig, 1889), p. 46; Bertalot 2: 270; Sottili,
IM U 18 (1975): 17-26; Trapezuntiana, p. 5; Iter 3: 482-483D; H. Harth, Poggio + 1 5 ] ----- , Lat. qu. 453. Mbr., misc., s. XV 1/4, 87 leaves. Italian gothic-
Bracciolim Lettere, 1 (Florence, 1984), pp. LVII-LIX; above, p. 51. script, double columns, decorated initials. Archinti arms; formerly Morbio 331;
acquired by SB in 1889.
9 1 -----S Lat. fol. 582. Misc., s. XV. Text ending on f. 29v dated 1448; text
ending on f. 12r written by Giovanni Aretino. Formerly Phillipps 5367. ff. 69ra-79va: A p . , tr. Bruni, first version, ff. 79vb-84vb: C n . , tr. Bruni, first
version.
If. 1 2r-21r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Bruni, Schriften, pp. 125, 237; Iter 3: 475E. Mever-Simonsfeld, Verzeichms, p. 37; Sottili, IM U 18 (1975): 57-58; Iter 3:
489D; above, p. 51.
101----- > Lat. fol. 613. Cart., misc., s. XV, 140 leaves. Probably NE Italian.
1 6 ] ---- , Lat. qu. 489. Cart., misc., s. XV, 144 leaves. Formerly Libri, no.
inter tf. 40v and 47r: Phd., tr. Bruni, preface onlv.
795.
Iter 3: 483-484D
ff. 89r-134r: E p . , tr. Bruni.
+ 1 1 ] ----- , Lat. fol. 614. Mbr., s. XV 1/2, 72 leaves. Several semigothic Iter 3: 489D.
scripts, North Italian. Notabilia in several hands, one of which belongs to Pier
Candido Decembrio. Acquired in 1901. 1 7 ] ---- , Lat. qu. 558. Cart., misc., s. XV ex., 279 leaves. Northern hand,
Rep. , tr. Chrvsoloras and Uberto Decembrio, with preface. gothic cursive bookhand. Formerly Barrois 581.

Iter 3: 475E; above, p. 412. ff. 220v-230v: A x. , tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Angelotto Fosco. ff.
230v-242r: Cri. , tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Manuel Paleologus
(redactio minor).
1 2 ] -----, Lat. qu. 430. Cart., misc., s. XV, 290 pages. Written in Italy.
Formerly Manzoni 72. Lockwood, p. 59; Berti, p. 113; Iter 3: 490-491D.
pp. 224-242: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
1 8 ] ---- , Lat. oct. 200. Misc., s. XV. Formerly Phillipps 16252.
A. Tenneroni, Catalogo ragionato dei MSS appartenenti al fu Conte Giacomo Manzoni
(Citta di Castello, 1894), pp. 67-68; Sottili, IM U 18 (1975): 43-47; Iter 3: 488. f. 295v: An excerpt from the Ax. (372A 4-13), tr. Cencio de’Rustici, inc. Ego
autem, o Axioche, ratione allectus—des. meliorem locum migraturum.
1 3 ] -----, Lat. qu. 431. Cart., misc., s. XV, leaves numbered irregularly. Mitteilungen aus der Kgl. Bibl. 2: Neue Erwerbungen der Hss. -Abteilung, 1 (Berlin-,
Owned by Alessandro Padovani of Forli; formerly Manzoni 91. 1914), p. 57, no. 15.
pp. 188-201: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Giordano Orsini.
*19] BERNE, Burgerbibliothek cod. 194. Cart., s. XVI, 376 leaves. Title page:
Tenneroni, Catalogo, pp. 82-84; Bertalot 2: 134; Trapezuntiana, p. 6 ; Iter 3: 488D. “ Plato de republica sive de iustitia Florentiae ex Bibliotheca Sancti Spiritus
1549 m. m. sF. S .” At end (f. 206r): “ Explicit liber [decimus] et ultimus ... M.
+ 1 4 ] ----- , Lat. qu. 448. Mbr., misc., s. XV (1486), 78 leaves. Round M. A. S. 1550.”
humanistic hand. Formerly Morbio 240; acquired by SB in 1889. A colophon
on f. 48v has been clumsily altered by a forger: “ Summo deum [Vc] magnas ago ff. lr-206r: Rep., tr. Chrysoloras and Uberto Decembrio without preface.
gratias ego [Leonardus Arretinus nobilis schriptor added byforger over scribe’s name\ J .R . Sinner, Cat. codd. mss. bibl. Bernensis (Berne, 1760-1772), 1: 575; H. Hagen,
quia perscribendi expleui haec Commentaria primi Punici belli clari et optimi Cat. codd. Bernensium (Berne, 1875), p. 245; Garin (1955), p. 343; Iter 6444D ts.
oratoris Leonardi Arretini cuius memoriam dum uiuo ob suum in me
honestissimum et optimum amorem honorificam seruabo. Florentiae VI Kal.
* 2 0 ] ----- , cod. 593. Mbr., s. XV 1/2, 19 leaves. Written in Italy,
Quintiles 1425 mihi et meis.” f. 72v: “ Platonis philosophi epistolae e greco in
latinum traductae a Leonardo Arretino huius aetatis viro eloquentissimo ac semihumanistic bookhand. Damaged by fire.
cloctissimo ad Cosmum de Medicis Florentinum. [Hec itaque dominos (sic) ff. 1-19: Ep. VI (fragmentary) and VII-XII, tr. Bruni.
674 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 675

Sinner, Catalogus, 1: 575; Hagen, Catalogus, p. 473 (who incorrectly assigns the *27]------, 2465. Cart., misc., s. XV 1/2, 230 leaves. Semigothic bookhand with
translations to Ficino); Suppl. 1: VI; Iter 6458D ts. initials decorated in a North Italian style, notabilia. From the Augustinian
canons of S. Salvatore in Bologna.
*21]----- , cod. 663. Cart., misc., s. XVI, leaves unnumbered. Written byjac- ff. 177v-189v:- A p . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 189v-195v:
ques Bongars in Marburg, Jena, and Strasbourg. At the end of' the relevant Cri., tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 195v-226v: Phd., tr. Bruni,
lascicule is written “ Platonicorum definitionum finis Argentorati 1569 with preface, ff. 226v-230r: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, without preface.
JatJobus] Bonfgardus],”
Frati, p. 481, no. 1259; Bertalot 2: 134.
Fourth fascicule (14 leaves): Speusippus (ps. Plato), Def. (tr. Ficino).
Hagen, Catalogus, p. 497; Iter 6858D ts. *28]----- , 2649. Mbr. and cart., misc., s. XV (1451-1453), 137 leaves. Written
in Faenza; round humanistic bookhand, Tuscan decoration. Fly-leaf:
‘‘Canonicorum sancti Salvatoris de Bononia.” f. 64r: ‘‘XVIo Februarii
*22] BOLOGNA, Biblioteca Comunale deil’Archiginnasio A 199. Cart., s. XV
MCCCCLIII.” f. 94v: “ A. D. MCCCCLI” . f. 116r: “ Faventie die Septem-
2/2, 178 unnumbered leaves. Semigothic bookhand, North Italian decoration,
bris MCCCCLII” . f. 118r: “ Die XXII Settembris MCCCCLII Faventie” . f.
written by Frater Johannes Snorphil de Allemania.
126: “ explicit die XXV Februarii MCCCCLIII.” f. 127r (another hand): “ Hie
If. lv-178r: Eg. and Epin., tr. George of Trebizond, with the preface to liber conventus est fratrum seu canonicorum regularium s. Augustini
Francesco Barbara and the Republic of Venice. monasterii s. Salvatoris, quern habuerunt ab heredibus magistri Lanciloti pro
nonnullis aliis libris gramaticalibus dictorum canonicorum quos habuerunt dicti
Mazzatinti 30: 90; Garin (1955), p. 372 (who gives the incorrect shelf-mark A
109); Trapezuntiana, p. 7. heredes.”
ff. lr-58v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and letter (Mehus 1.8) to Niccoli. ff.
* 2 3 ]----- , A 914. Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2, 259 leaves. Humanistic cursive 118v-126r: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Giordano Orsini.
bookhand. Frati, pp. 512-513, no. 1392; Bertalot 2: 134.
ff. 13v-32r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
*29]----- , 2828. Mbr., s. XV med., 158 leaves. Round humanistic bookhand.
Mazzatinti 32: 85-86. From the Augustinian canons of S. Salvatore in Bologna.

*24]----- , B 4214. Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2, 168 leaves. Written in Bologna by ff. lr -lllv : Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.
two humanistic hands, one belonging to Agamemnone Marescotti Calvi. Ex Frati, p. 546, no. 1512.
libris of Jo. Petr. Amidei. Marginal notes and glosses in the hand of Calvi.
* 3 0 ]------, 2830. Mbr., s. XV 3/4, 58 leaves. Round humanistic bookhand,
ff. 1 r-31r: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 31 r-37r: A x. , tr. Rinuc-
cio Aretino. ff. 37v-52v: A p. , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. Florentine decoration. Arms and signature of Giuiio Landucci; from the
52v-61r: Cri. , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument. Augustinian canons of S. Salvatore in Bologna.
ff. 30r-57r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. At end: “ Platonis
R. Sabbadini, R. 1st. Lomb. di sc. e lett., Rendiconti, ser. 2, 59 (1926): 485-492;
Iter1 : 17-18D.
philosophi liber qui dicitur Phedrus hnit feliciter. Leonardus Aretinus traduxit
e graeco MCCCCXXIIII.”
*25] BOLOGNA, Biblioteca Universitaria 329. Cart., s. XV 2/2, 92 leaves. Frati, p. 547, no. 1514; above, p. 383.
Fly-leaf (s. XVI-XVII): “ Antonius Pedevilla dono dedit Bibliothecae” .
Humanistic cursive bookhand, notabilia in scribe’s and a second hand (dated *31] BOLOGNA, Collegio di Spagna 18. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 110 leaves.
1501). Italian Gothica formata with pronounced cancelleresca features.
ff. 17r-47v: Ep. II-XII only, tr. Bruni. ff. 91r-ll0v: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
L. Frati, Studi ital. di filol. class. 16 (1908): 195, no. 215. I. Gil Fernandez, De codicibus Albornotiams ad graecas latinasque litteras pertinentibus
commentarius (Bologna, 1964), pp. 88-94; Iter 1 : 28D.
*2 6 ]----- , 1797. Cart., s. XV, 112 unnumbered leaves. Humanistic cursive
bookhand, written by Gundisalvus Hispanus in Florence in the 1470s. From the 32] BRESCIA, Biblioteca Civica Queriniana C V' 10. Cart., misc., s. XVII-
convent ot S. Domenico in Bologna. XVIII, several fascicules, unnumbered leaves.
If. 52r-109r: Ep. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. E p. , tr. Bruni, preface only.
Frati, p. 395, no. 931. Iter 1: 34D; Kristeller (1985), p. 313.
676 P A R T III CATALOGS 677

+ 33] BRESSANONE (BRIXEN), Archivio del Seminario A 14. Cart., s. XV T. R. Orcajo, Catalogo descnptivo de los codices que se conservan en la santa iglesia
med., 247 leaves. German gothic bookhand, decorated initials. Owned bv catedral de Burgo de Osma (Madrid, 1929), p. 211; Richardson, Union World Cata­
Nicholas of Cusa and Melchior von Meckau, bp. of Brixen (1482-1509). Some logue 2 (1933), p. 125; Iter 4946D ts.
marginalia in the hand of Nicholas of Cusa.
ff. 1 r-176r: Rep., tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with prefaces, argumentula et capita 39] CAMBRIDGE (ENGLAND), Library of Corpus Christi College 472.
hbrorum, brevis annotatio and letters of transmission of Decembrio, Francesco Mbr., misc., s. XV.
Pizolpasso, and Duke Humfrey of Gloucester. pp. 265-293: Ax. , tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with prefaces to Orsini and Velleius,
Iter 1:37D; Fubini (1966): 326, note 8; Santinello, p. 117, note 1; Sammut, p pp. 491-537: A p . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, pp. 538-566: C n .,
140; Kristeller (1985), p. 563. tr. Bruni, second version, with argument.
M. R. James, A Descriptive Cat. of the MSS in the Libr. of Corpus Christi College.
34] BRUSSELS, Bibliotheque Rovale Albert Ier, cod. 1461-1484. Cart., misc., Cambridge (Cambridge, 1912), 2: 408-411; Bertalot 2: 270; Sammut, p. 16, note
s. XV, several hands. 13; Kristeller (1985), p. 244.
If. 234v-240r ( = item 1477): Phd., tr. Bruni, fragmentary at the end, with the
short version of the preface to Innocent VII (me. Cum inter ceteras tuas laudes). *40] CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, Harvard University, Houghton
Library Typ 178. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 170 leaves. Round humanistic script,
Catalogue des MSS de la Bibl. Roy. des Dues de Bourgogne (Brussels, 1842), p. 30; Florence, 1470s, attributed to Gundisalvus Hispanus (by A. C. de la Mare);
F. Novati, Rassegna bibliografica della letteratura italiana 2 (1894): 47; R. Calcoen, decoration attributed to Mariano del Buono (de la Mare). Bought by Philip
Inventaire des MSS scientifiques de la Bibl. Roy. de Belgique 1 (Brussels, 1965), pp. Hofer from Olschki in 1948 and left by him to the Houghton in 1984.
43-44, no. 43; Iter 3: 113-114D ; above, p. 49n.
ff. lr-52v: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
3 5 ] -----, cod. 4306-4317. Cart., misc., partly printed, unnumbered leaves. Bond, p. 267; R. S. Wieck, Late Medieval and Renaissance Illuminated MSS,
Last folio: “ Cartusiae Silvae s. Martini prope Gerardi montem in Flandria 1350-1525, in the Houghton Library (exh. catalogue, Cambridge, Mass., 1983), p.
1665” . 127; A. C. de la Mare, New Research on Humanistic Scribes in Florence, in Mimatura
Fiorentina del Rinascimento: Un pnmo censimento, ed. A. Garzelli, 1 (Florence,
(item 4314, s. XVII): Ep. 4-6, 9-12 only, tr. Ficino.
1985), p. 31, no. 9; Iter 6864D ts; J. Hankins, ‘‘Bruni MSS in North America,”
Catalogue (1842), p. 87; H. Omont, ‘‘Catalogue des MSS grecs de la Bibl. roy. in Leonardo Bruni cancelliere della Repubblica di Firenze (Florence, forthcoming), no.
de Bruxelles,” Revue de I’instruction publique en Belgique, 27-28 (1884-1885): 381; 20 .
Iter 3: 115D.
41] CAPESTRANO, Convento di S. Francesco XXXII. Cart., misc., s. XV,
3 6 ] ---- , cod. 14608-14611. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 112 leaves. Written in Italy. 214 leaves. Gothic minuscule; partly written (ff. 175-214) by Fra Paolo di
Teramo (1446), with rubrics and marginalia in the hand of San Giovanni da
ff. 20r-30v ( = item 14609): Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Capestrano.
Catalogue (1842), p. 293; Iter 3: 120D.
ff. lr-23v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.
A. Chiappini, Reliquie Letterane Capestranesi (Aquila, 1927), pp. 83-86.
37] BUDAPEST, National Szechenyi Library Clmae 292. Cart., misc., s. XV
(1445), 173 leaves. Written in Italy, perhaps owned by Zach. Mossoczy-
+ 42] CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, University of North Carolina
ff. 49v-69r: A p . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument. Library MS 3. Cart., misc., s. XV 3/4, 147 leaves. Humanistic cursive note
E. Bartoniek, Codices latini medii aevi (Budapest, 1940), pp. 269-271; Iter 4209E hand; scholar’s copy with extensive marginalia. On fly-leaf: ‘‘Conv. S. Franc.
ts. Serre” (s. XVIII) probably Serra Petrona, near Macerata, or Serra San
Quirico, near Ancona. Bookplate ofThom asode’ Comucci (s. XIX). Collection
of Rev. Aaron Burtis Hunter, no. 554 (s. XX), by whom it was donated to the
38] BURGO DE OSMA, Biblioteca de la Catedral 124. Mbr., s. XV, 113
leaves. Several Italian and Spanish hands. University Library.
ff. 143r-145v: Ax., (tr. Cencio de’Rustici), fragmentary at the beginning (begins
if. 4v-75v (Italian hand): Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and letter to Niccoli
at 369A), inc. Tu vero solus et Euriptolomeus [sic] inde contione eos defendisti
(Mehus 1.8). ff. 77r-98r (Spanish hand): Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argu­
ubi triginta milia virorum—des. unde vocatus hue progressus sum.
ment. ti. 101 r-109v (Spanish hand):/lx., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with prefaces to
Giordano Orsini and Velleius. De Ricci, p. 1907.
678 C A TA LO G S 679
P A R T III

*43] CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, Newberry Library +97 (olim 23877). Mbr., s. contents of the MS (f. 104r) in a third hand, signed (f. 104r) ‘Teliciter Brugis
XV med., 231 leaves. Written by Arnaldus Masullus at the Castello dell’Ovo II Idus Iunias anno Christi 1417. AAOON2IOS T .”
in Naples, ca. 1450. White vine-stem initials. Corrections in the hand of the ff. 2r-46v: Grg., tr. Bruni, with extensive marginalia and glosses in the hand of
copyist. Formerly in the library of Miguel de Mayora of Barcelona (1858); no. “ Alphonsius G .”
54 in the collection of Henry Probasco; acquired bv the Newberry 1 December
1890. Mancini, I MSS della Libreria del Comune e dell’Accademia Etrusca di Cortona (Cor­
tona, 1884), p. 44; Mazzatinti 18: 40.
ff. 22r-229r: Rep., tr. Cassarino, with Isagogicon in Platonis vitam et doctrinam.
Volger, Philologus 13 (1858): 195-204, with extract from the translation; R. Beer, 49] DOUAI, Bibliotheque M unicipal 463. Cart., s. XV 2/4, 106 leaves. Partly
Handschriftenschaetze Spamens (Amsterdam, 1970), p. 99, no. 54; De Ricci, p. 530; written by Alfonso de la Puebla, apostolic protonotary and nephew of the ps.-
Resta (1959), p. 270. cardinal Alphonsus Carillus, probably at the Council of Basel.
ff. 10lr-106r: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface (fragmentary).
*44] COLOGNY (near Geneva), Bibliotheca Bodmeriana C. B. 136. Mbr., s.
Cat. gen. 6: 272-275; Bertalot 2: 134.
XV 1/4, 169 leaves. Greek text of six Platonic dialogues written by Leonardo
Bruni. Marginal annotations in the hand of Giorgio Antonio Vespucci. Proba­ 50] DRESDEN, Saechsische Landesbibliothek Db 76. Mbr., s. XV, 124 leaves,
bly identical with item 1132 in the old San Marco inventory. Owned bv
Minutoli Tegrimi, Firmin Didot, Samuel Allen and Sir Sidney Cockerell. ff. 99r-l24r: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
ff. 114v-117v (written into the margins of the Greek text in a sixteenth century F. Schnorr von Carolsfeld and L. Schmidt, Kat. der Hss. der Kgl. Oeffentl. Bibl.
hand): Ale. 2 (138A-141A only), tr. Ficino. zu Dresden 1 (Leipzig, 1882), p. 301; Iter 3: 376E.
B. L. Ullman and P. A. Stadter, The Public Libr. of Renaissance Florence (Padua,
5 1 ] ---- , Db 82. Mbr., s. XV, 49 leaves. Written in Italy; bought in Florence
1972), p. 256, item 1132 and p. 280, item M 156; E. Berti, Museum Helveticum
35 (1978): 125-148; Iter 3317D ts. in 1495 by D. Lomelinus. Badly damaged.
ff. lr-49r: Grg., tr. Bruni.
*45]----- , C. B. 137. Mbr., s. XV 1/2, 76 leaves. Written in Italy in a round
Schnorr and Schmidt, Katalog, 1: 303; Bertalot 2: 268; Iter 3:376.
humanistic bookhand, decorated initials in the French style. Written by Marcus
Spegnimbergensis. Owned by “ DM K ” .
52] DUBLIN, Trinity College Library D.4.24. Mbr., misc., s. XV (probably
ff. lr-76v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and letter to Niccoli (Mehus 1.8). after 1451), 136 leaves. Written by six different English gothic hands, with
E. Pellegrin, MSS latins de la Bodmeriana (Cologny-Geneva, 1982), pp. 330-331; headings in humanistic capitals, English decoration, royal coat of arms. Written
Iter 6477D ts. by John Manyngham, secretary (1448-1451) of Oxford University.
ff. 122r-132v: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with the preface to Giordano Orsini.
46] COLMAR, Bibliotheque Publique 376. Misc., s. XV. North Italian prov­
T. K. Abbott, Catalogue of the MSS in the Library of Trinity College Dublin (Dublin,
enance. A collection of model letters.
1900), p. 6 8 , no. 438; Bertalot 2: 134; R. W. Hunt and A. C. de la Mare, Duke
ff. 115v-116v: Rep., tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, preface only [ = Text 39]. Humfrey, p. 11, no. 21; Iter?,-. 195D; on Manyngham see W. O ’Sullivan, Bodleian
Libr. Record 7 (1962-1967): 28-39; Kristeller (1985), p. 244.
Cat. gen. 56: 142-144.
5 3 ] ---- , K.4.20. Mbr., misc., s. XV, unnumbered leaves. Written in France
47] COMO, Biblioteca Comunale 4.4.6. Cart., misc., s. XV med., 422 leaves.
Semihumanistic bookhand, double columns. From the Visconti library. or England.
Phdr., tr. Bruni, fragmentary at the beginning. A x. , tr. Cencio de’Rustici. Grg.,
ff. 399r-403r: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, without preface.
tr. Bruni. A p . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument. C n . , tr. Bruni, second
Iter 1 : 47D; E. Pellegrin, La bibliotheque des Visconti et des Sforza dues de Milan, Sup­ version, with argument. Phd., tr. Bruni. Ep., tr. Bruni.
plement (Florence, 1969), pp. 53-54; Harth, Poggio Lettere, 1 : XLIV; O. Besomi
and M. Regoliosi, Laurentu Valle epistole (Padua, 1984), pp. 30-31; Kristeller Abbott, Catalogue, p. 158, no. 923; Iter 3: 196D.
(1985), pp. 245n. 249n., and plates III-IV, 496.
54] DUESSELDORF, Landes- und Stadtbibliothek F 10. Cart., misc., s. XVI,
double columns. Several hands, numbered irregularly.
+ 48] CORTONA, Libreria del Comune e dell’Aceademia Etrusca 78. Mbr.,
s- XV (before 1417), 104 leaves. Written in semigothic (ff. 2r-46v) and early ff. 2-3: Ion, tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 3v-5v: Sph., tr. Ficino, with preface
humanistic (ff. 50r-103v) scripts, with an argument (f. lv) and a note on the (fragmentary), ff. 88-91: A x. , tr. Agricola, copied from the edition of Deventer,
680 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 681

1506 [Cat. B, no. 17], with prefaces, ff. 91v-94r: Xenocrates, De morte (i.e., Tv.) ff. lr-34r: Grg., tr. Bruni, with preface to John XXIII.
tr. Ficino, from the edition of Strasbourg, 1507 [Cat. B, no. 18], Then' long Antolfn, Catalogo 3: 148; Richardson, Union Catalogue 5: 272. Bertalot 2: 268; de
excerpts from other Platonic translations and arguments by Ficino, including (f la Mare, The Handwriting, p. 57 with plate; above, pp. 56f., 376, 382f.
104r-v) Euthphr., with argument, (f. 109r) T i. , with its Compendium (f. 132r) and
(f. 153r) Phd., with argument.
60] EUGENE, OREGON, University of Oregon Library, Burgess 13. Mbr.,
Iter 3: 5‘22D. s. XV, 34 leaves. Written in Italy. Formerly in the library of Charles E.
Goodspeed of Wollaston, Massachusetts; purchased by E. S. Burgess from A.
55] DURHAM (ENGLAND), Cathedral Library C.IV.3. Cart., s. XV. Rosenthal.
Owned by Richard Nix, bp. of Norwich (el. 1501).
Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface to Innocent VII.
Rep. , tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with prefaces, argumentula et capita librorum,
Brevis annotatio, and letters of transmission of Decembrio, Francesco Pizolpasso De Ricci, p. 1087; Bond, p. 433; Iter 6942D ts.
and Duke Humfrey of Gloucester.
T. Rud, Codd. MSS ecclesiae cathedralis Dunelmensis cat. classicus (Durham, 1825), 61] FANO, Biblioteca Comunale Federiciana, Federici 82. Cart., misc., s. XV,
p. 294; Weiss, p. 57; Zaccaria (1959), p. 180; Sammut, p. 140; above, p. 96. unnumbered leaves. Written by Petrus Marcus Bartholellus, a doctor from
Fano, in 1467; arms of the Bartolelli family.
56] DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, Duke University Library Lat. MS A x. , tr. Cincius, with preface to Giordano Orsini.
21-25. Cart., misc., s. XV 3/4, 181 leaves, a fragment of a larger MS. Scholar’s
copy, various round and cursive humanistic scripts; one scribe (f. 87v) identifies Mazzatinti 38: 62-63; Iter 7874D ts.
himself as “ Paulus” .
+ 62] FERRARA, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea II 66. Cart., s. XV med., 41
if. 94r-101v: Ax., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with the preface to Angelotto Fosco. ff.
leaves.
lOlv-llOr: Cri., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with the preface to Manuel Paleologus
(redactio minor). ff. 17r-26r: L y. , tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with preface.
M. P. Harris, Library Notes 47 (1977): 18-32; E. Berti, Studi classici e orientali Zaccaria (1956), p. 54; Iter 1: 56D; Kristeller (1985), p. 287; above, p. 419.
dell Umv. di Studi, Pisa 33 (1983): 120; Iter 6939D ts; communication of B. M.
Rosenthal. 6 3 ] ---- , II 131. Cart., s. XV, 157 leaves. Perhaps from Giovanni Aurispa;
later owned by the Carmelite Battista Panetti (d. 1497); numerous marginalia
*57] EL ESCORIAL, Real Biblioteca g.IV.17. Cart., misc., s. XV 3/4, 385 in hand of Panetti.
leaves. Various hands, one of them signed (f. 281r): “ Ludovicus de Gavilla
scripsit cum festinatione” . Rep. , tr. Cassarino, with Isagogicon in Platoms vitam et disciplinam.

If. 238r-272r (written by Ludovicus de Gavilla): E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and Resta (1959), p. 270; Iter 1: 55E; A. Franceschini, Giov. Aurispa e la sua bibl.
argument. (Padua, 1976), p. 61, no. 19; on Panetti see A. Bargellesi Severi, Carmelus 8
(1961): 63-131; below, p. 803n.
Haenel, c. 952 (who gives the wrong shelf-mark); G. Antolfn, Catalogo de los
1 (Madrid, 1910), pp. 307-310;
codices latinos de la Real Biblioteca de El Esconal
Richardson, Union Catalogue, 5:272.* 6 4 ] ----, II 135. Cart., misc., s. XV, 283 leaves, numbered irregularly. Several
hands. Owned by Battista Panetti.
*58]----- , g. III.3. Mbr., s. XV 3/4, 96 leaves. Richly bound and illuminated, ff. 158r-l94r: Grg., tr. Bruni, with argument, ff. 232r-263v: Phd., tr. Bruni,
written by Gundisalvus Hispanus in Florence in the 1470s (signed “ G. H .” , f. with preface.
96r), perhaps for Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary. Arms (f. lr) erased, but
MS note (s. XIX) says “ Escudo de Matias Corvinus, Rey de Hungria o mejor Bertalot 2: 268; Iter 1: 57-58D.
de Luis de Hungria’’.
65] FIECHT BEI SCHWAZ, Stiftsbibliothek der Benediktiner-Abtei St.
ff. lr-96r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. Georgenberg-Fiecht Cod. 255. Cart., misc., s. XVI (1524-1527), 71 leaves.
Antolfn, Catalogo, 2: 260-261; Richardson, Union Catalogue, 5:272. Copied by Raymundus Eberhardus, canon of St. Georgenberg.
ff. 33r-39r (a. 1524): D ef, tr. Ficino.
*59 ]----- , n.III.7. Mbr., s. XV (1409-1411), 34 leaves. Probably the dedica­
tion copy. Written by Giovanni Aretino with headings by Poggio Bracciolini P. Jeffery and D. Yates, Hill Monastic MS Libr., St.John’s Umv., Descriptive Inven­
and corrections and notes in the hands of Leonardo Bruni and Niccolo Niccoli. tories of MSS Microfilmed, 2 (Collegeville, 1985), pp. 314-315; Iter 3: 14D.
682 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 683

*6 6 ] FLORENCE, Archivio di Stato, Carte Gianni cod. 54, t'asc. 7. Cart., s. * 7 2 ]----- , Plut. LXV 15. Mbr., misc., s. XV 3/4, 156 leaves. Written in
XVI (a. 1551), 20 unnumbered leaves. In the hand of Pier Vettori (communica­ Florence by a follower of Piero Strozzi. From the monastery of S. Salvatore in
tion of L. Cesarini Martinelli). Last folio: “ Finis Lvsidis sive de amicitia quern Florence.
Petrus Victorius nobis interpretatus est eumque absolvit XII Kal. Junias
MDLI. ’’ ff. 54v-91r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.

Ly. , tr. Pier Vettori. Bandini, Catalogus 2: 733.

Iter 1: 64D. *7 3 ] ----- , Plut. LXXVI 42. Mbr., s. XV 3/4. Humanistic cursive bookhand.
ff. lr-62v: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
*67]----- , Carte Strozziane IV (Archivio Uguccioni Gherardi) MS 789. Mbr.,
Bandini, Catalogus 3: 113-114; Bruni, Schnften, p. 233.
s. XV, 18 leaves.
If. 1r-13r: Ep. VII and X only, tr. Bruni. * 7 4 ] ----- , Plut. LXXVI 43. Mbr., s. XV med., 76 leaves. Humanistic
bookhand; written in Florence for Piero de’Medici by the scribe of Fiesole 152,
Iter 1: 69D.
with decoration by the Fiesole master; probably intended as a supplement to
Piero’s other MS of Brum’s Plato translations [no. 78, below],
*6 8 ] FLORENCE, Biblioteca Laurenziana Plut. XXI 8 . Mbr., s. XV (1491), ff. lr-37r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 37r-50r: Phdr., tr.
268 leaves. A collection of Ficino’s juvenilia, dedicated to Lorenzo de’Medici; Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 50r-67r: Ap., tr. Bruni, second version,
richly illuminated; Medici arms. Written by Sebastiano Salvini. with argument, ff. 68r-76r: Cri. , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument.
ff. 41r-47v: ,4*., tr. Ficino, with preface to Piero de’Medici. ff. 48r-56r: Def. , Bandini, Catalogus 3: 115; Bruni, Schriften, pp. 125, 233; Bertalot 2: 270; P.
tr. Ficino, with preface.
D ’Ancona, La mimatura fiorentina (Florence, 1912), p. 272, no. 457; Berti, p.
A. M. Bandini, Cat. codd. lat. Bibl. Med. Laur. 1 (Florence, 1774), col. 6 68 sqq.; 188; F. Ames-Lewis, The Libr. and MSS of Piero di Cosimo de’Medici (New York,
Suppl. 1 : VIII-IX; S. Gentile, in Mostra, pp. 70-72, no. 55 and plate; S. Gentile, 1984), p. 323; S. Gentile, in Mostra, pp. 10-11, no. 9.
in Supplementum Festwum, pp. 351, 355, 370; above, p. 267.
*7 5 ] -------; piut. LXXVI 57. Mbr., s. XV (a. 1427), 148 leaves. Florentine
decoration; copied for Cosimo de’Medici by the Florentine scribe Antonio di
* 6 9 ]----- , Plut. XXI 21. Mbr., s. XV 2/2, 135 leaves. Written by Ficino’s
Mario; probably the dedication copy.
amanuensis Luca Fabiani.
ff. 2r-52r: Ep. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 54r-77v: Ap., tr. Bruni,
11. 39v-47r: Def.. tr. Ficino. (f. 80r-86r: Ax., tr. Ficino, with preface to Piero second version, with argument, ff. 77v-89r: Cri., tr. Bruni, second version, with
de’Medici.
argument, ff. 90r-148v: Phd., tr. Bruni, without preface.
Bandini, Catalogus 2: 697 sqq.; Suppl. 1 : IX; S. Gentile, in Mostra, pp. 44-45, Bandini, Catalogus 3: 126; Bruni, Schriften, pp. 173, 234; Bertalot 2: 428; Garin
no. 32; S. Gentile in Supplementum Festwum, p. 383.
(1955), p. 365; Berti, p. 186; above, pp. 78, 383, 384 f.

*7 0 ]----- , Plut. LII 2. Mbr., s. XV 1/2. Semihumanistic bookhand. *76]------, Plut. LXXXII 6 . Mbr., s. XV (1484), 330 leaves. The first volume
of the dedication copy of Ficino’s Platonis opera omnia for Lorenzo de’Medici, il­
If. 22v-63r: Grg. , tr. Bruni, with argument, ff. 63v-98v: Phd. , tr. Bruni, with
luminated by Attavante. Medici arms and binding.
preface.
ff. lr-2v: Ficino’s preface to Lorenzo de’Medici. ff. 2v-6v: Ficino, Vita Platonis.
Mehus 1: LXXV; Bandini, Catalogus, 2: 545; Bertalot 2; 268.* ff. 6 v-8 v: Hipparch. , with argument, ff. 9r-llr: Amat. , with argument, ff.
1 lr-14v: Thg. , with argument, ff. 15r-24r: Men., with argument, ff. 24r-34r: Ale.
*71]----- , Plut. LIV 10. Mbr., s. XV (1460s), 76 leaves. Humanistic cursive /, with argument, ff. 34r-38r: Ale. II, with argument, ff. 38r-41r: Min., with
bookhand. The Collectiones Cosmianae, prepared by Bartolomeo Scala for Lorenzo argument, ff. 41r-45v: Euthphr., with argument, ff. 45v-58r: Prm., with argu­
de’Medici, with marginal notes and corrections in Scala’s hand. ment. ff. 58r-74r: Phlb., with argument, ff. 74r-82r: Hp. M a., with argument,
ff. 82v-89r: Ly, with argument, ff. 89v-114r: Tht., with an “ epitome ’. ff.
1. 79r-v: Ax., tr. Ficino, preface only. 114v-119v: Ion, with argument, ff. 119v-133v: Sph. , with argument, ff.
Bandini, Catalogus 2: 643-651; Suppl. I: X; A. M. Brown, JW CI 24 (1961): 134r-151 r: Pol. , with argument and dedicatory Apologus ... ad Fedencum Urbim
186-221; R. Fubini and S. Caroti, Poggio Bracciolim nel VI centenario della nascita, ducem. ff. 152r-170r: Prt., with argument, ff. 171 r- 184r: Euthd., with argument,
Codici e documenti fiorentim (Florence, 1980), p. 42; S. Gentile in Mostra, pp- ff. 185r- 189v: Hp. mi., with argument, ff. I90v-199v: Chrm., with argument, ff.
27-27, no. 21. 200r-208v: La., with argument, ff. 209r-210v: Clit. , without argument, and
684 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 685

with notation “ Hie liber forte non est Platonis.’’ ff. 211r-232r: Cra., with argu­ * 8 2 ]----- , Plut. XC sup. 59. Cart., s. XV m-ed., 26 leaves. Scholar’s copy.
ment. ff. 233r-261v: Grg., with argument, ff. 262r-298r: Ficino, Commentanum
in Convivium. ff. 298v-312v: Smp. ff. 313r-330r: Phdr., with argument. ff. lr-26r: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.

Bandini, Catalogus, 3: 190; D ’Ancona, La mimatura, 2: 748, no. 1527; Suppl. 1 : Bandini, Catalogus, 3: 642.
XI; Mostra della bibl. di Lorenzo nella Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana (Florence, 1949),
p. 35, no. 97; S. Gentile in Mostra. pp. 113-116 with plate facing p. 98; S. Gen­ *83]----- , Acq. e Doni 82. Cart., misc., s. XV (1460s-70s), 115 leaves. Several
tile in Supplementum Festivum, p. 347. hands.
f. 45r: A x. , tr. Ficino, preface only.
*77]----- , Plut. LXXXII 7. Mbr., s. XV, 398 leaves. The second volume of
no. 76. Suppl. 1: XVI; Iter 1:100D

ff. lr- 12v: Ap., with argument, ff. 13r-17v: Cri., with argument, ff. 18r-43v: *84]----- , Acq. e Doni 323. Cart., misc., s. XV, 183 leaves. Florence, 1430s
Phd., with argument, ff. 44v-50r: M x. , with argument, ff. 51r-166r: Rep., with (?), several hands, humanistic script.
arguments to each of the ten books, ff. 167r-193v: Ficino, Compendium in
Tirnaeum. tf. 194r-220r: 77. ff. 221r-228v: Crih., with argument, ff. 229r-363r: ff. 28r-52r: E p . , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff- 98r-l29r: Grg., tr.
Lg. , with arguments to each of the twelve books, ff. 363r-372v: Epin., with argu­ Bruni, without argument.
ment. ff. 373r-398r: Ep. I-XII, with arguments to each letter. Bertalot 2: 268; Iter 1 : 102-103D; Harth, Poggio Lettere, 1: XLI-XLII.
Bandini, Catalogus, 3: 191-192: D ’Ancona, La mimatura, p. 748, no 1528; Suppl.
1 : XI-XII; S. Gentile in Mostra. p. 116, no. 89 II; S. Gentile, in Supplementum *85]----- , Aedil. 160. Mbr., s. XV, 182 leaves. Copied at Ferrara in March,
Festivum. p. 347. 1437. Humanistic bookhand. decorated initials.
ff. 133r-137v: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with argument, ff. 138r-159r: Grg., tr. Bruni.
* 7 8 ]----- , Plut. LXXXII 8 . Mbr., misc., s. XV. Relevant parts written by with argument, ff. 159v-178r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.
Giovanni Aretino for Cosimo de’Medici, probably after 1418. Other parts writ­
ten later (probably by Leonardo da Colie), in 1457, for Piero de'Medici, who Bandini, Bibl. Leopoldina Laurentiana (Florence, 1791), 1:461; Bruni, Schnften, p.
inherited the earlier parts of the MS from his father. 235; Bertalot 2: 268.
ff. lr-41r: Grg., tr. Bruni. ff. 42r-77v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface. *85 b is]----- , Ashb. 252. Mbr., misc., s. XV 1/2. Semigothic bookhand, writ­
Bandini, Catalogus, 3: 192-193; Bruni, Schnften, pp. 1 , 234; Bertalot 2: 268; F. ten in Northern Italy.
Ames-Lewis, The Library of Piero de’Medici, p. 334 and plate 4. ff. lr-v: Ep. IX and I only, tr. Bruni.
* 7 9 ]----- , Plut. LXXXIX sup. 50. Cart., s. XV in., I l l leaves. Gothic C. Paoli et a l., I codici Ashburnhamiani (Indici e Cataloghi VIII), p. 264, no. 177;
bookhand, corrections in copyist’s and a second hand. Iter 1 : 82E.

Rep., tr. Chrvsoloras and Uberto Decembrio, with prologue and poem. *8 6 ] ----- , Ashb. 1458. Mbr., s. XV’, 10 leaves. Formerly part of no. 114,
Bandini, Catalogus. 3: 314-316; G. Cammelli, Manuele Cnsolora (Florence, 1941), below. Copied at Bruges in 1475 for Card. Domenico Albergati. A folio after
p. 124n.; Garin (1955), p. 341-344; Mostra. pp. 9-10, no. 8 ; above, p. 412.* f. 2 has been removed.
ff. lr-2v: Preface to Ficino’s translation of Speusippus (ps.-Plato), Alcinous, and
*80]----- , Plut. LXXXIX sup. 58. Cart., misc., s. XV med. Humanistic cur­ Pythagoras opuscula, addressed to Giovanni Cavalcanti, fragmentary at the
sive, scholar’s copy with notabilia and corrections. end. ff. 3r-10v: Xenocrates (ps.-Plato), Def., tr. Ficino, fragmentary at the be­
ff. lr-20v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 20v-46r: Grg., tr. Bruni, with ginning.
argument. Ministero della pubblica istruzione, Bollettino ufficiale 10 (1884): 709; Suppl. 1:
Bandini, Catalogus 3: 320. XVII; Iter 1: 96D; Mostra, p. 50, no. 38.

*81]----- , Plut. XC sup. 56. Cart., misc., s. XV, 94 leaves. Rear fly-leal: “ Hit *87]----- , Conv. soppr. 544. Cart., misc., s. XV. Florentine humanistic script;
liber est mei Luce Antonii Johannis de Bernardis de Sancto Gemignano, 4/. text ending on f. 124v dated “ die s. Anne [26 July] 1470’’; hand on f. lr-v at­
tributed to Sebastiano Salvini by S. Gentile; ff. 8r-13v have autograph correc­
ff. 73r-81r: Ep. I-VII only, tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. tions of Ficino. From S. Maria Novella.
Bandini, Catalogus 3: 639-641. ff. lr-7v: Ax., tr. Ficino, with preface.
686 P A R T II I C A TA LO G S 687

Suppl. 1: XVI; Ficino, Comm, in Conv., p. 42; V. R. Giustiniani, Alamanno Rinuc- Iter 1: 125E.
am: Lettere ed oraziom (Florence, 1962), p. 32; Iter 1 : 75D; G. Tanturli, Studi di
filol. ital. 36(1978): 237; G. Pomaro, Memorie Domenicane 13 (1982): 298ff.; Gen­ * 9 5 ]------, Magi. VIII 1443. Cart., misc., s. XV-XVI, 202 leaves. Relevant
tile (1983): 33-77; S. Gentile in Mostra, pp. 62-63, no. 47. part probably autograph.
ff. 153r-l67r (s. XV): Ion, tr. Lorenzo Lippi da Colie, with preface.
*8 8 ] ----- , Monte Amiata 6. Mbr., s. XV (before 1438). From Cistelli.
ft. lr-33v: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. Garin (1955), pp. 370-371; Iter 1: 135D; above, pp. 475, 487.

Bandini, Bibl. Leopold. Law., 1: 696-700. *96]------, Conv. soppr. B 3 500. Cart., misc., s. XV, 76 unnumbered leaves.
From Ognissanti.
*89]----- , Strozzi 65. Mbr., misc., s. XV 4/4, 178 leaves. Humanistic cursive
bookhand, decorated initials. f. 6 8 v: Ep. XII only, tr. Bruni.
Iter 1: 155D.
ff. lr-53v: Ep., tr. Bruni. with preface and argument.
Bandini, Bibl. Leopold. Law., 2: 400-402. * 9 7 ]------, Conv. soppr. D 8 985. Cart., misc., s. XV 4/4, 215 leaves. From
Santa Maria Novella. Relevant folios written by Girolamo Savonarola; later
*90] FLORENCE, Biblioteca Moreniana Frullani 22. Cart., s. XV, 129 leaves. owned by Fr. Alessandro di Pietro, O. P., of Florence.
Owned by Francesco Lenzi da Peretola (s. XVI).
f. 208r-v: Excerpts from Ficino’s Vita Platonis (under the title ‘‘De doctrina
ff. 13r-34v: A p. , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 37r-47v: Cm'., tr. platonicorum” ) made by Savonarola, ff. 209r-214v: Excerpts from Ficino’s
Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 49r-107v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with Latin version made by Savonarola, including the Thg., Men., Ale. 1-2, Euthphr.,
preface. Min., Phlb., Tht., Ion, Pol., Smp., Phdr., Ap., Cn., Phd., Rep., Ti., Lg., Epin.,
C. Nardini et al., I MSS della Bibl. Moren. (Florence, 1913), 2, fasc. 5: 154-155; and Ep.
Iter 1 : 110E; Berti, p. 186. E. Garin, Pico (1963), p. 51; Gann (1978), pp. 201-212; Iter 2: 513-514D.

*91] FLORENCE, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Naz. II VII 125. Cart., * 9 8 ]------, Conv. soppr. J 1 13. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 161 leaves. Humanistic
misc., s. XV ex. Written bv Pvrrhus Vizanus in 1496. Formerly Boncompagni bookhand, decorated initials. Donated to San Marco (no. 285) by Carlo Rinuc-
192. cini (d. 1480).
ff. 175v-176r: Ep. I and X II only, tr. Bruni. ff. 123r-l61v: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument
B. Narducci, Cat. di MSS ora posseduti da D. Baldassare Boncompagni (Rome, 1892), Iter 1: 161D ; Ullman and Stadter, Public Library, pp. 238-239.
p. 117; Mazzatinti 11: 211-213.
*99]----- , Conv. soppr. J 8 9. Cart., misc., s. XVI, 280 leaves. Formerly San
* 9 2 ]----- , Naz. II IX 148. Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2. Marco 537; several hands.
ff. 14r-22v: C n . , tr. Bruni, first version, with incorrect rubric: "‘Phedon Platonis ff. 170r-175r: Ax., tr. Ficino, fragmentary at end, without preface.
sive de anima e greco in latinum traductus per Leonardum Aretinum feliciter
incipit.” [Cp. no. 370, below.] Suppl. 1: XXVI; Iter 1: 164D.

Mazzatinti 12: 25-26; Bertalot 2: 270; Garin (1955), p. 363; F. Masai, Scrip­ * 1 0 0 ]----- , Pal. Panciatichi 131. Cart., s. XV 3/4, 74 leaves. Written by
torium 12 (1958): 156; Iter
1 : 115-116D; Berti, p. 151; above, pp. 51, 52. Lorenzo Lippi da Colle, with notabilia in his hand.

*93]----- , Naz. II X 45. Mbr., s. XV, 62 leaves. Humanistic script. From the ff. lr-4r: Ficino’s preface to his version of the opuscula of Speusippus (ps.
library of Cav. Giov. Giraldi (s. XVIII). Plato), Alcinous and Pythagoras, ff. 4v-14v: Def., tr. Ficino.

ff. 2r-42r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and letter to Niccoli (Mehus 1.8), the I codd. Panciatichi della R. Bibl. Naz. Centr. di Firenze 1 (Rome, 1887), p. 205;
latter bearing the title ‘‘Epistola communis ad libros omnes Platonis.” Suppl. 1: XXVI-XXVII; Iter 1: 146; Mostra, pp. 47-48, no. 35.

Mazzatinti 12: 42; Garin (1955): 361-363. * 1 0 1 ] ------, Pal. Capponi 180 (olim 135). Cart., s. XVIII, various fascicules,
separately numbered. Arms of Card. Capponi. Copied by Giov. Vine. Capponi
*94]----- , Magi. VIII 1424. Cart., misc., s. XVI, 93 leaves. From Strozzi. in 1724 from a MS belonging to the Duke of Urbino.
If. lr-52r: Ep. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. Last fascicule, ff. lr-43r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
688 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 689

Iter 1 : 149D; 2: 513D. *108]----- , 676. Mbr., misc., s. XV med., 77.leaves. Humanistic script.
ff. 33r-36r: Srnp., Speech of Alcibiades (215A-222A), tr. Bruni, in a letter to
*102] FLORENCE, Biblioteca Riccardiana 127. Mbr., s. XVI in., 162 leaves. Cosimo de’Medici (Mehus VII. 1).
Written for Giovanni Simoni of Siena in 1504.
Lamius, Catalogus, pp. 134, 262, 269, 325, 326; Inventano, p. 17; Iter 1 : 197D.
Rep., tr. Cassarino, without Isagogicon.
Inventano e stima della Libreria Riccardi (Florence, 1810), p. 7; Garin (1955), p. *109]----- , 766. Cart., misc., s. XV ex., 474 leaves. Texts ending on f. 398v
358; M. L. Scuricini Greco, Miniature Riccardiane (Florence, 1958), p. 38, no. written at Bologna bv Peregrinus Seraptus Pontremulensis on 23 December
10; Resta (1958), p. 270; Iter 1 : 186D. 1495.
ff. 263r-267r: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, without preface.
*103]----- , 128. Mbr., s. XV ex., 139 leaves. Humanistic bookhand, rich il­
lumination. Inventano, p. 19; Bertalot 2: 134; Mostra del Poliziano (exh. cat., Florence, 1954),
p. 87, no. 87; Gann (1955), p. 369; Iter 1: 199-200D; above, pp. 82n., 84.
If. 2r-38v: Ep. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Inventano, p. 7; D ’Ancona, La mimatura fiorentina, 2: 409-410, no. 806; Scuricini *110]----- , 779. Cart., misc., s. XV, 444 leaves. Written in Milan. Several
Greco, Miniature, pp. 38-39, no. 11; Iter 1 : 186D; 2: 516D hands, the first (North Italian Gothic) dated 1429: the rest are s. XV med.
ff. 413v-414r (s. XV med.): Phd. ,■tr. Bruni, preface only, fragmentary at the
*104]----- , 159. Cart., misc., s. XV, 230 leaves. Humanistic script.
end.
ff. 168r-190r: Ap., tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 192r-203r: Cri. ,
tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 204r-220v: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with Inventano, p. 19; Iter 1: 20ID.
preface and argument.
*111]----- , 907. Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2, 190 leaves. Several hands; relevant
J. Lamius, Cat. codd. MSS qui in Bibl. Riccard. Florent. adserv. (Livorno, 1756), portions written by Bartolomeo Fonzio, with extensive marginalia.
pp. 42, 262, 323, 379; Inventano, p. 8 ; Bertalot 2: 271; Iter 1 : 189D; Berti, p.
187. ff. 108r-112v: Excerpts from Ep. I-X, tr. Bruni, and from his preface and
.1argument.
*105]----- , 162. Cart., misc., ss. XV-XVI, 301 leaves. Various humanistic and Inventano, p. 22; Iter 1: 208D; Caroti and Zamponi, Lo scrittoio, pp. 19, 60-68;
italic hands. A. C. de la Mare, in Cultural Aspects of the Ital. Ren. , ed. C. H. Clough (Man­
ff. 16r-23r (s. XV): Ax., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Angelotto Fosco. chester, 1976), pp. 166, 196; Trapezuntiana, p. 20.
ff. 23r-31v (s. XV): Cri., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Manuel
Paleologus (redactio minor). *112]----- , 924. Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2, 329 leaves. Several hands.
Lamius, Catalogus, pp. 32, 89-90, 172, 185-186, 234, 239, 307, 322, 323, 325, ff. 3 13r-318v: Ep. /-///o n ly , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
326, 347, 367, 375, 379, 382; Inventano, p. 8 ; Garin (1955), p. 368, note 39; Iter
1 : 189D; Berti, p. 113; above, p. 87.
Inventano, p. 22; Mostra del Poliziano, p. 97, no. 152; Iter 1: 210D.

*106]----- , 421. Cart., misc., s. XV 3/4, 163 leaves. 113] FLORENCE, Biblioteca della Fondazione Horne D 2 16. Mbr., misc., s.
XV, unnumbered leaves.
ff. 156v-157v: Ap., tr. Bruni, First version, fragmentary at the end.
Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Lamius, Catalogus, pp. 141, 231, 248, 257, 306, 319, 346, 365, 383; Inventano,
p. 13; Bertalot 2: 271; Iter 1 : 192D. Iter 8107D ts.

*107]----- , 673. Cart., misc., s. XV, 238 leaves. A collection of excerpts made 114] FLORENCE, Collection of Marchese Filippo Serlupicod. 2. Mbr., s. XV,
by Bartolomeo Fonzio. Excerpt on f. 179r dated 28 August 1488. 104 leaves. Written in 1475 in Bruges for Cardinal Domenico Albergati. See no.
8 6 , above.
f. 218v: Excerpts from Ficino’s translations of the Ly., Ion, Lg. II, Lg. VII.
ff. 95r-104r: Ax., tr. Ficino, with preface to Piero de’Medici.
Lamius, Catalogus, pp. 10, 29, 105, 190, 193, 235-236, 245, 247, 317, 320, 324,
379; Inventano, p. 17; Iter 1 : 196D; S. Caroti and S. Zamponi, Lo scnttoio di Bar­ F. Saxl, JWCI 1 (1937); Kristeller (1956), p. 165, no. 32; Iter 1 : 229-230D;
tolomeo Fonzio (Milan, 1974), p. 19. Mostra, pp. 48-49, no. 37.
690 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 691

115] FLORENCE, Biblioteca dell’Accademia Colombaria II II II 10. S. XV. Haenel, p. 794; J. Young and H. Aitken, A Cat. of the MSS in the Ltbr. of the
Lost during the Second World War. Hunterian Mus. (Glasgow, 1908), pp. 148-150, no. 206; Kristeller (1956), p. 159;
Iter 3202 ts.
E p. , tr. Bruni.
U. Dorini, Atti della Soc. Columb. di Firenze dall’anno 1910 a ll’anno 1920 (Florence, 120] GOTHA, Forschungsbibliothek Chart. B 452. Cart., s. XVI.
1921), pp. 267-356; Iter 1 : 227E.
T i. , tr. Janus Cornarius.
116] GENOA, Biblioteca Durazzo B III 3. Mbr., s. XV, 59 unnumbered F. Jacobs and F. A. Ukert, Beitr. zur aeltern Litt. oder Merkwuerdigkeiten der Herzogl.
leaves. A presentation copy given by Filippo Valori to Lorenzo de’Medici, writ­ Oeff. Bibl. zu Gotha (Leipzig, 1935-43), 1: 210, 211, 256; Iter 3: 395E.
ten by an unidentified amanuenisis of Ficino. Medici arms. From the Due de
la Valliere. 121] HAARLEM, Stadsbibliotheek 187 C 15 (olim fol. 21). Mbr., misc., 341
leaves. Written for Raphael de Marcatellis in 1487 and corrected in his hand.
ff. 50r-55v: Def., tr. Ficino, without the dedication to Cavalcanti.
ff. 63r-66v: Def., tr. Ficino, with preface to Cavalcanti, ff. 59r-60v: Ax., tr.
Kristeller (1956), p. 165; Iter 1 : 248D; 8168D ts; M. Sicherl, IM U 20 (1977): Ficino, fragmentary at the end.
323-339; D. Puncuh, I MSS della raccolta Durazzo (Genoa, 1979), pp. 212-214, no.
143 and plate 91; Mostra, pp. 45, 72; S. Gentile in Supplementum Festivum, p. 347. Kristeller (1956), p. 166; Derolez, Raphael de Marcatellis, pp. 44-48, no. 5; Iter
4369D ts.
+ 117]----- , B V 14. Cart., misc., s. XV med., 86 leaves. Decorated initials.
HOLKHAM HALL. See WELLS, NORFOLK, Library of the Earl of
Acquired by Giac. Fil. Durazzo from Nice. Grillo Cattaneo in 1784.
Leicester at Holkham Hall.
ff. 54r-61v: Cri. , tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with prefaces to Gabriel Condulmer and
to Manuel Paleologus (redactio maior). + 122] KARLSRUHE, Badische Landesbibliothek, Reichenau Perg. CXXXI.
G. D. Oderico, Giorn. ligustico 7-8 (1881): 149-156, 180-182, no. 22; Iter 1 : 246E; Mbr., s. XV in., 96 leaves. Italian gothic bookhand, decorated in NE Italian
2: 523E; 8173 ts; Puncuh, I MSS, pp. 262-264 and plate 107; E. Berti, Studi style, double columns. Marginal and interlinear notes in late 15th-cent. hand.
classici e onentali 33 (1983): 11911. ff. lr-31v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 57r-70r: A p . , tr. Bruni, First version,
ff. 70v-76r: Cri., tr. Bruni, First version.
118] GHENT, Centrale Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit 1. Mbr., s. XV ex., A. Holder, Die Reichenauer Hss: Die Pergamenthss, vol. 5 of Die Hss. d. Gross-herzogl.
278 leaves. Written in Flanders in three gothico-bastarda hands, richly Badischen Hof- u. Landesbibl. in Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe, 1906), pp. 323-325; Bertalot
decorated; owned by Raphael de Marcatellis. 2: 270; Berti, pp. 16-20; above, pp. 50, 52, 380.
ff. 1 r- 1 2r: Phdr., tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 12v-20r: A p . , tr. Ficino, with
argument, ff. 20r-23v: Cri., tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 23v-41v: Phd., tr. 123] KRAKOW, Biblioteka Polskiej Akademii Nauk 1717. Cart., misc., s.
Ficino, with argument, ff. 42r-45r: M x. , tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 46v-123v: XVI, 242 leaves. Written by Bernardus Lublinius; relevant portions dated
Rep., tr. Ficino, with arguments for each book. ff. 124r-138v: Ficino, Compen­ 1505.
dium in Ti. ff. 139r-153v: 7V., tr. Ficino. ff. 154r-158r: Criti. , tr. Ficino, with
ff. 36r-156v: Excerpts from Plato, tr. Ficino.
argument, ff. 158v-252v: L g. , with arguments for each book. ff. 253r-259v:
Epin., tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 260r-277r: E p. , tr. Ficino, with an argu­ J. Czubek, Kat. Rckopisow Akademii Umiyetnosci w Krakowie (Krakow, 1906), 1:
ment for each letter. 28; K. Aland, Die Hss.bestaende der Polnischen Bibliotheken (Berlin, 1956), p. 35;
Iter 4:410-11.
J.-A. Walwein de Tervliet, Cat. des MSS de la Bibl. Publ. de la Ville de Gand
(Ghent, 1816), p. 22, no. 135; J. de St.-Genois, Cat. methodique et raisonne des MSS
de la Bibl. de la Ville et de I’univ. de Gand (Ghent, 1849-52), p. 271, no. 354; Suppl. 124] KRAKOW, Biblioteka Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie, Oddzia Zbiory
1: XXIX; A. Derolez, Inuentans van de Hss. in de Umv.bibl. te Ghent (Ghent, Czartoryskich 2388. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 266 leaves. Written by Antonio
1977); A. Derolez, The Library of Raphael de Marcatellis (Ghent, 1979), pp. Sinibaldo in 1499; owned by Paolo Pallavicino; illuminated.
260-266, no. 52, with plates; Iter 3: 128D. pp. 12-125: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Iter 4:409.
119] GLASGOW, Library of the Hunterian Museum U 1 10. Mbr., s. XV
(1483), 104 leaves.
125] KUES, Hospitalbibliothek 177. Cart., s. XV, 118 leaves. Written by
If. lr-83v: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 8v-32v: Phd., tr. several hands, with marginalia in the hand of Nicolaus Cusanus, who owned the
Bruni, with preface. codex.
692 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 693

ff. lr-29r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 29v-41r: A p . , tr. Bruni, second ver­ List of Additions Made to the Collections in the British Museum (London, 1843), p. 35;
sion, with argument, ff. 41v-47r: Cri. , tr. Bruni, second version, with argu­ Weiss, pp. 164-167; below, Texts 4-5.
ment. ff. 48r-53r: Ax. , tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Angelotto Fosco.
J. Marx, Verzeichnis d. Hss. -Sammlung des Hospitals zu Kues bei Bernkastel am Mosel *130]----- , Add. 11274. Cart., s. XV 2/2, 173 leaves. Written in England.
(Trier, 1905), pp. 164-166; Lockwood, p. 59; Bertalot 2: 270; Berti, p. 186. Marginalia on ff. 87r-121v.
ff. 2r-13r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, without argument, ff. 13v-30r: A p . , tr. Bruni, second
126] ---- , 178. Cart., s. XV, 207 leaves. Marginalia in the hand of Nicolaus version, without argument, ff. 30r-38v: Cri., tr. Bruni, second version, without
Cusanus, who owned the codex. argument, ff. 40r-86v: Phd., tr. Bruni, without preface, ff. 87r-121v: Ep. I-VI,
VIII-XII, VII, tr. Bruni, without preface or argument.
Rep., tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with prefaces, argumentula et capita librorum,
Brevis annotatio, and letters of transmission of Decembrio, Francesco Pizolpasso, List of Additions (London, 1843), p. 46; Bertalot 2: 270; Berti, p. 188; Iter 4:91;
and Duke Humfrey of Gloucester. above, p. 96.
Marx, Verzeichnis, pp. 166-167; Zaccaria (1959), p. 180 et passim; Santinello, * 1 3 1 ]----- , Add. 11760. Cart., misc., s. XV, 190 leaves. Written in Italy,
passim; Sammut, p. 140; above, p. 413.
perhaps for Giovanni Bacci.

+ LEIDEN, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, BPL 867. Cart., s. XVI ff. 137r-140v: De uirt., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Bornio da Sala.
(1578-80), 146 leaves. Owned by Peter Schaak (a. 1713), the Abdij van ’t Park List of Additions (1841), pp. 4-5; Kristeller (1985), pp. 244, 247, 250, with plate,
in Heverlee, Belgium, and H. W. Tydeman, who donated it to the library in 496; Iter 4:92.
1860. Despite being listed in the unpublished inventories among the Latin MSS,
this MS contains the Euth., Cri., Phd., Ax., and Ap. in Greek only, written by *132]----- , Add. 11898. Cart., misc., s. XV.
Arnoldus de Beresteyn. Some annotations in Latin. See Catalogus MSS Bibl.
Lugd. Batavae (6 MS volumes on deposit at the Bibliotheek), vol. IV. ff. lr-12r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 16r-35v: A p. , tr.
Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 36v-45r: Cri., tr. Bruni, second ver­
sion, with argument, ff. 45v-78r: Grg., tr. Bruni, without argument.
127] LENINGRAD, Public Library Lat. Q. II 356. Cart., s. XVI, 14 leaves.
Written by Conrad Peutinger. Catalogue of Additions (1850), p. 16; Berti, p. 187; Iter 4:71.
ff. 8v-14r: Excerpts from the Lg. and the Tht. , tr. Ficino.
*133]----- , Add. 14800. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 90 leaves. Humanistic bookhand
Iter 6716D ts. with decoration. Fly-leaf (s. XV) “ Laurentii magistri, Petri de Spinellis et
fratris” . From the Niccolini library.
128] LIVERPOOL, Athenaeum, Roscoe Collection 31. Mbr., s. XV, 73 un­ ff. 23r-35v: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 36r-81r: Phd., tr.
numbered leaves. In two parts: (Pt. I) ff. 1-43, Italian semihumanistic script Bruni, with preface.
(1440s?); (Pt. II) ff. 44-72, Italian humanistic script, s. XV med. Some omis­
sions in Phd. repaired in margins by good professional humanistic hand, s. XV; Catalogue of Additions (London, 1850), p. 7; Iter 4:97.
some notabilia (s. XVI). Initials decorated in a Gothic style. Owned by the
Liverpool historian William Roscoe; acquired bv the Athenaeum after his sale *134]----- , Add. 19744. Cart., misc., s. XV (1463-1469), 233 leaves/Written
(lot 1788). in Florence by Jacobus and Donatus de Rimbottis; decorated, with a portrait
ofjac. de Rimbottis (f. 45r). f. 4r: “ Opus Jacobi ser Verdiani de Rimbottis,
ff. 2r-33v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 37r-43r: Cri., tr. Bruni, first version, 1463’’. f. 94v: “ Explicit <feliciter> Platonis <Phaedo> permejacobum de
with original argument, inc. Dialogus Platonis incipit ubi Socrates introducitur. Rimbottis die XXIIII Februarii anno Domini 1467 [1468].’’ 1. 149r: “ Opus
ff. 44r-72r: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface. Jacobi ser Verdiani et Donati de Rimbottis scripxit [.nc] anno Domini 1469 die
Catalogue of the Library of the Athenaeum, Liverpool (London, 1864), p. 84; descrip­ XI M aii.’’
tion kindly provided by M. C. Davies; see also App. 1 , note 26; above, p. 52. ff. 46r-94v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 95v-148v: Grg., tr. Bruni.
Catalogue of Additions (London, 1875), p. 3; Bertalot 2: 268; A. G. Watson, Cat.
*129] LONDON, British Library Add. 10344. Mbr., s. XV ( inter 1473-1486).
of Dated and Datable MSS in the British Libr. (London, 1979), p. 55, no. 219; Iter
Probably written by John Doget.
4:75.
The greater part of the Phd., tr. Bruni, in the lemmata of Doget’s commentary
entitled Examinatonum in Phedonem Platonis, dedicated to Cardinal Thom as * 1 3 5 ]----- , Add. 22017. Mbr. s. XV 1/2, 50 leaves. Written in Italy,
Bourchier. humanistic bookhand, decorated initials.
694 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 695

ff. 2r-50r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface. J. R. Abbey, p. xxi, note 1; R. W. Hunt and A. C. de la Mare, Duke Humfrey
and English Humanism (exh. cat., Oxford, 1970), p. 5, no. 9; C. E. Wright, Fontes
Catalogue of Additions (London, 1875), p. 571; Iter 3518E ts.
Harleiani (London, 1972), pp. 126, 200, 361 and plate 5A; B. L. Ullman, Studies
in the Italian Renaissance, 2nd edn. (Rome, 1973), p. 353, no. 9; Sammut, pp.
*136]----- , Arundel 138. Cart., misc., s. XV. Various gothic cursive hands, 34n., 38, 58, 103-104, 139-143; N. R. Ker, Med. Libr. of Great Britain, Suppl. to
including that of Johann Pirckheimer.
2nd edn, ed. A. G. Watson (London, 1987), p. 9; above, pp. 141, 413.
ff. 305r-306r: Rep. , tr. Decembrio, preface to Duke Humfrey only [Text 39]
Catalogue of MSS in the British Mus., New Series 1 (London, 1834), pp. 32-37; *142]------, Harl. 2570. Cart., misc., s. XV. Humanistic bookhand. Owned by
Foligno, Nuovo archivio Veneto, ser. 2, 14.2 (1907): 353-358, no. 185; A. Reiman, the Capilupi of Mantua.
Die aelteren Pirckheimer (Leipzig, 1944), pp. 231-234; N. Mann, IM U (1975): ff. 145r-157v: Ep. I-VII only, VII fragmentary at the end, tr. Bruni, with preface
250-251, no. 81; above, p. 87. and argument.

* 1 3 7 ]----- , Arundel 277. Cart., misc., s. XV med., 130 leaves. Several Catalogue (1759), 2, no. 2570; Catalogue (1808), 2: 701; Iter 4:162.
humanistic cursive hands. From the library of Francesco Sassetti.
1 4 3 ] ------, Harl. 2953. Mbr., ss. XV-XVI, 211 leaves. With the title
ff. 116r-125v: Ax., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Angelotto Fosco. “ Psalterium et hym ni in usum familiae Peutingerianae” . Partly in the hands
Catalogue of MSS (London, 1834), pp. 81-82; Lockwood, p. 59; A. C. de la Mare of Conrad and Karl Peutinger.
in Cultural Aspects, ed. Clough, pp. 168-201; Iter 4:130. f. 32v et passim: Excerpts from works of Ficino, including his translations and
commentaries on Plato.
*138]----- , Burney 74. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 130 leaves. Humanistic bookhand,
decorated initials. From the Maffei library. Iter 4:166.
11. 103r-129v: Ep . , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
*1 4 4 ]------, Harl. 3261. Mbr., s. XV med., 164 leaves. Written in Italy for
Catalogue of MSS (London, 1834), 1.2: 24-25; Iter 361 2E ts. Nicolaus Cusanus and given by him to Jean Jouffroy while the latter was Bishop
of Arras (1453-1462). Ex-libris of Hospitalbibliothek, Kues.
*139]----- , Burney 126. Cart., misc., ss. XVI-XVII. English hands; owned
ff. 2r-155r: L g. , tr. George of Trebizond. ff. 155r-164v: Epin., tr. George of
and partly written by Thomas Traherne.
Trebizond.
ff. 5r-45r: Extracts from Ficino’s argumenta to his translations of Plato.
Catalogue (1808), 3: 13; P. Lehmann, Mitteilungen aus Hss. 2 (Munich, 1930), p.
Catalogue of MSS (London, 1834), 1.2: 49; Kristeller (1956), p. 160; C. L. 24; Garin (1955), p. 372; Wright, Fontes Harleiani, p. 425; Monfasani, George of
Marks, RQ 19 (1966): 120; Iter 4:132. Trebizond, p. 170n.; Trapezuntiana, p. 26; Iter 4:167.

*140]----- , Burney 226. Cart., misc., s. XV 4/4, 71 leaves. Humanistic cursive *145]------, Harl. 3481. Mbr., s. XV, 335 leaves. Written in 1491 by Petrus
bookhand. Hippolytus Lunensis for Ferrante of Aragon and Naples, probably copied from
ff. 2r-7v: Ax., tr. Rudolph Agricola. the printed edition; richly illuminated. Owned by the Biblioteca s. Andrea della
Valle in Rome (fndd. 1524) and by John Wright, librarian to George Henry
Catalogue of MSS (London, 1834), 1.2: 66; Iter 4:134. Hay, 7th Earl of Kinnoull.
*141]----- , Harl. 1705. Mbr., s. XV (ca. 1438), 96 leaves. One of the dedica­ Contents as in no. 76.
tion copies to Duke Humlrey of Gloucester, autograph; Milanese decoration. Catalogue (1808), 3: 32; Suppl. 1 :XXXII; T. De Marinis, La Bibl. Napoletana dei
Formerly in King’s College, Cambridge; owned by Henry Worsly (d. 1747). f. Re d ’Aragona 2 (Milan, 1947), p. 128; Kristeller (1956), p. 159; Wright, Fontes
96v: “ Cest livre est a moy Homfrey due de Gloucestre du don. P. Candidus Harleiani, p. 150; Iter 4:172.
secretaire du due de Mylan.”
Rep. I -V only, tr. Pier Candido Decembrio. ff. 95v-96r: a summary of the other *146]------, Harl. 3551. Mbr., s. XV, 35 leaves. Written by Niccolo Schiaffini
live books, based on the argumentula of Uberto Decembrio [Text 35]. da Camogli (later chancellor of Genoa) in 1416 at Feodosiya in the Crimea.
Given by Niccolo’s son Prospero to Count Alberto Scotti of Mantua; later
.1 Cat. of the Harl. Coll, of MSS ... Preserved in the British Mus. 1 (London, 1759), owned by Philippus de Gnaciis (fl. 1516) and John Gibson, the book dealer who
no. 1705; A Cat. oj the Harl. MSS in the British Mus. 1 (London, 1808), p. 178;
sold it to Harley.
Garin (1955), pp. 343, 350; Weiss, p. 57; Zaccaria (1959), p. 180; Resta, Le
epitomi, p. 52; J. J. G. Alexander and A. C. de la Mare, Cat. of the MSS of Major Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.
696 P A R T III CATALOGS 697

Catalogue (1808), 3: 40; Alexander and de la iMare, Library of J. R. Abbey, pp *152] MADRID, Biblioteca Nacional 8467. Cart., s. XVI, 257 leaves. A com­
xxiv note 2, 28n.; Wright, Fontes Harleiam, nos. 94, 166, 299; Watson, Dated and monplace book in Latin and Spanish. Fly-leaf: “ Del Sgr. Conde de Miranda’ .
Datable MSS, pp. 136-137, no. 765; Iter 4:174; above, p. 87. ff. 1 r-4 v: Ficino, Vita Platonis, excerpts, ff. 25r-31v: Smp., tr. Ficino, excerpts,
ff. 42r-53r: Smp., tr. Ficino, and Ficino, De amore, excerpts, ff. 194r-199v: La.
*147]----- , Harl. 4923. Cart., misc., s. XV 2 / 2 , 482 leaves. Humanistic cursive and Rep., tr. Ficino, excerpts, ff. 209r-v: Ep., tr. Ficino, excerpts, also from
bookhand, decorated initials. Ficino’s argumenta. ff. 232r-235v: Phd., tr. Ficino, excerpts, ff. 232r-236v:
Amal., tr. Ficino, complete, ff. 237r-257r: Rep., Amat., Tht., Ti., Prt., Chrm.,
If. 293r-310r: Ep. , tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 310r-3!4r: Ax., tr. Rinuccio Ly., Prm., tr. Ficino, excerpts.
Aretino, with preface to Angelotto Fosco (“ A. ep. Cavensis’’). ff. 314r-322r:
Cn., tr. Bruni, second version, with argument. Kristeller (1987), p. 93; Iter 4: 557; above, p. 419.
Catalogue (1808), 3: 221; Lockwood, p. 59; Iter 4:182.
+ 153] MADRID, Archivo Historico Universitario, Universidad Complutense
de Madrid, MS 129. Cart, and mbr., misc., s. XV med., unnumbered leaves.
*148]----- , Harl. 5054. Cart, and mbr., misc., ss. XV-XVI, 309 leaves. Rele­ Several humanistic hands.
vant portions s. XV ex., written in France.
Ly., tr. Pier Candido Decembrio. with preface.
tl. 79r-97v: A p . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 97v-106r: C n .,
J. Villa Amil y Castro, Cat. de los MSS existentes en la Bibl. del Noviciado de la Univer­
tr. Bruni, second version, with argument.
sidad Central. 1 (Madrid, 1878), p. 48, no. 129; Iter 4: 587-588D.
Catalogue (1759), 2, no. 5054; Catalogue (1808), 3: 243; Iter 4:183.
*154] MILAN, Biblioteca Ambrosiana A 96 inf. Mbr., s. XV, 83 leaves.
*149]----- , Harl. 7035. Cart., misc., s. XVII. Written by P. N. Archibald, Semigothic bookhand, decorated initials. Owned and annotated, probably in
Capuchin friar. From St. John’s, Cambridge. An apograph of Harl. 1705. 1421, by Tommaso Bibi of Cyprus, a student of Gasparino Barzizza at Padua,
Fly-leaf: “ Questo libro era de la consorteria de messer Juan Corner et toccho
pp. 141-154: Rep., tr. Pier Candido Decembrio: the letters of transmission [Text a la consorteria de messer Fantin Corner ne la divisione fatta fra messer Corner
38] and prefaces to Books I-V [Texts 39-43] only. et mi Francesco Corner a di ultimo Aprile 1504.’’
Catalogue {1759), 2, no. 7035; Iter 4:154. Rep. , tr. Chrysoloras and Uberto Decembrio, with prologue and poem.
A. Amelli, Riv. delle Bibl. e degh Arch. 20 (1909): 146; Rivolta, Cat. dei codd.
*150]----- , Royal 10 B IX. Cart., misc., s. XV, 259 leaves. Several fascicules, pinelliani dell’Arnbros. (Milan. 1933), pp. 207-208, no. 192; Iter 1: 279E, R.
written by different gothic hands at various times. Relevant folios were written Cipriani, Cod. mimati dell’Ambros. (Milan, 1968), pp. 148-149; Inventano Ceruti
in 1459 by Henry Cranebroke, monk of Christ Church, who acquired some of (Trezzano, 1973-1979), 1: 55; above, p. 412.
the other fascicules from J. Hynder Capell in 1452. Owned by Thomas
Cranmer and John, Lord Lumley. * 1 5 5 ] ------( A 128 inf. Mbr., misc., s. XV 4/4, 258 leaves. Humanistic cursive
ff. 70v-71v: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici. bookhand and Florentine decoration.
Catalogue of the Western MSS in the Old Royal and King’s Collection (London, 1921), ff. 83r-114r: Phd., tr. Bruni, without preface.
1: 314-321; N. R. Ker, Med. Libr. of Great Britain (London, 1964), p. 37; Hunt R. Sabbadini, Studi ital. di filol. class. 11 (1903): 317; Iter 1 : 297E; Cipriani,
and de la Mare, Duke Humfrey, pp. 11-12, no. 22; Watson, Dated and Datable Codd. mimati, p. 1o 1; A. L. Gabriel, A Summary Cat. of Microfilms of 1000 Scientific
MSS, p. 153, no. 884; Sammut, pp. 128, 131; Iter 4:200; above, p. 96. MSS in the Ambros. Libr. (Notre Dame, 1968), p. 41; Inventano Ceruti 1: 70-71.

151] LUENEBURG, Ratsbuecherei Misc. D Fob 15 (olim 32). Cart., misc., * 1 5 5 ] ----- , c 69 inf. Cart., misc., s. XV med., 189 leaves. Humanistic
s. XV, 127 leaves. Written in Bologna 23 September 1452 by Gottfried Lange, bookhand. f. I69v: “ Explicit liber iste quern ego Aluysius Mediolanensis de
procurator of the German nation. Owned by Henricus and Johannes Langen Strata Mediolani scripsi et expleui anno Domini currente MCCCCLVII
of Lueneburg. Februarii die nono.” From S. Maria Incoronata in Milan.
If. 116v-122v: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. ff. 57r-70r: Ap., tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 70v-77r: Cn., tr.
Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 77v-lllv: Phd., tr. Bruni, with pre­
M. Herrmann, Albrecht von Eyb und die Fruehzeit des deutschen Humanismus (Berlin, face. ff. I l l v - 117r: Ax., tr. Cencio de’ Rustici, with prefaces to Velleius and
1883), p. 122; P. Lehmann, SB Bayer. Akad. d. Wissensch., philos. philol. u. histor.
Giordano Orsini.
Kl. 4.9 (1933): 72; M. Wierschin, Hss. der Ratsbuecherei Lueneburg, Misc. u. Hist.
(Wiesbaden, 1969), pp. 39-41; Harth, Poggw Lettere 1: XXIX-XXX; Iter 3: 602. Amelli, p. 159; Iter 1: 281E; Inventano Ceruti 1: 230-232; Berti, p. 185.
 698 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 699

*157]----- , D 3 inf. Mbr., s. XV, 172 leaves. Humanistic cursive bookhand, Iter 1: 333D; Cipriani, Codd. miniati, p. 78; Inventario Ceruti, 3: 714.
coat of arms.
*163]------, I 104 sup. Cart., s. XV, 209 leaves. Pier Candido Decembrio’s ex­
If. lr-7r: Def., tr. Ficino, with preface to Cavalcanti, ff. 121r-125v: Ax., tr.
emplar; autograph, with extensive marginalia. At the end, a list of those for
Ficino, with preface to Piero de’Medici.
whom copies were made from this exemplar (“ Ex his Politie platonice libris data
Amelli, p. 171; Suppl. 1 : XXXIII-XXXIV; Iter 1 : 320D; Kristeller, in Studi di copia, etc.” ). Later owned by Francesco Ciceri.
bibhografia e di stona in onore di Tammaro De Marinis 3 (Verona, 1966), p. 28;
Rep. , tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with argumentula et capita librorum, Brevis an-
Gabriel, Scientific MSS, pp. 73-74; Cipriani, Codd. rnimati, p. 211; Inventano Ceruti
notatio, prefaces, and letters of transmission of Decembrio, Francesco Pizolpasso
1: 377-378.
and Duke Humfrey of Gloucester.
*158]----- , B 123 sup. Cart., misc., s. XV 1/4, 243 leaves. Hands of Uberto, Garin (1955), p. 348; Zaccaria (1959), p. 180; Iter 1: 300E; Santinello, p. 123;
Modesto and Pier Candido Decembrio. Relevant portion is autograph, with in­ Inventario Ceruti, 3: 717; Sammut, pp. 138-143; Bottoni, passim; above, p. 420f..
terlinear and marginal notes in hand of Uberto and Pier Candido. Prologue and
poem in hand of Pier Candido. A family zibaldone. From S. Maria delle Grazie *164]----- , M 4 sup. Mbr., misc., s. XV 2/4, 202 leaves. From the library of
and Francesco Ciceri. Francesco Pizolpasso, probably written 1439-1443. Several humanistic hands,
Milanese decoration.
If. 133r-2l5v: Rep. , tr. Chrysoloras and Uberto Decembrio, with prologue in the
shorter redaction of P. C. Decembrio [Text 34] and poem. ff. lv-36r: E p . , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 43r-59v: A p . , tr. Bruni,
second version, with argument, ff. 59v-68v: C n . , tr. Bruni, second version, with
R. Sabbadini, Classici e umamsti da codici ambrosiani (Florence, 1933), pp. 85-94;
argument, ff. 68v-76r: Ax. , tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with prefaces to Velleius and
Garin (1955), p. 341; Iter 1 : 382D; Inventario Ceruti 3: 76-78; M. Ferrari, Ricerche
Giordano Orsini. ff. 104v-112r: A x. , tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to
stor. sulla chiesa Ambros. 8 (1978-79): 185-186; L. Jordan and S. Wool, Invent, of
Angelotto Fosco. ff. 185r-186r: Ep. I, IX, X, tr. Filelfo.
Western MSS in the Bibl. Ambros. 1 (Notre Dame, 1984), pp. 120-123; Bottoni,
passim; above, pp. 107-8, 110-17, 412, 4711'.. R. Sabbadini, Studi ital. difilol. class. 11 (1903): 382; Lockwood, p. 59; Bertalot
2: 271; Garin (1955), p. 371; Paredi, pp. 130-132, no. 35; Iter 1 : 334D; Inventario
*159]----- , D 102 sup. Cart., misc., s. XV 1/2, 72 leaves. Italian bastarda Ceruti, 4: 77-79; above, vol. 1, p. 84n.; vol. 2, pp. 387, 404 f.
hand. From S. Maria Incoronata in Milan.
*165]----- , R 21 sup. Cart., misc., s. XV med., 209 leaves. Two Italian hands,
If. lr-20v: Grg. , tr. Bruni, with argument, ff. 22v-40r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with
scholar’s copy. Text ending on f. 6 v dated Ancona, 24 September 1446.
preface.
ff. 130r-145r: Cri. , tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with prefaces to Gabriel Condulmer
Bertalot 2: 266-268; Iter 1 : 297E; C. H. Lohr, Manuscnpta 17 (1973): 35-36; In­
and to Manuel Paleologus (redactio maior).
ventario Ceruti 3: 296-297; Jordan and Wool, Inventory, 2 (1986), pp. 217-218.
Iter 1 : 340D; Inventario Ceruti 4: 635-636; E. Berti, Studi classici e orientali 33
*160]----- , E 83 sup. Mbr., s. XV med., 95 leaves. Humanistic bookhand, (1983): 119-120 and note.
Lombard decoration, coat of arms of a bishop. Owned by Ottaviano Ferrari and
Francesco Ciceri. *166]----- , R 64 sup. Mbr., s. XV 1/2. Written by Berto Antonio di Berto,
chancellor of Siena. The colophon on f. 67r (“ quam VII kl. Maii Rome ab-
ff. lr-58v: Ep. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
solvit” ) at the end of Demosthenes Pro Ctesiphonte is authorial rather than scribal
Iter 1: 330D; Cipriani, Codd. mimati, p. 42; Inventario Ceruti, 3: 379-380. (cp. the colophon in the exemplar, App. 1, p. 377n.).
ff. 29r-48r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.
*161]----- , G 95 sup. Cart., s. XV, 193 leaves. Several hands; relevant por­
tions are written in a round humanistic bookhand, s. XV 1/2. f. lr (reader’s Iter 1: 340D; Inventario Ceruti, 4: 656-657.
note, semigothic cursive): “ Yhs. Die cathedre s. Petri [22 Febr.] incepi 1449 in
Genua.” f. 109r (same hand): ‘‘Yhs. 1447 die 28 Octobris. *167]----- , R 75 sup. Mbr., s. XV med., 44 leaves. Round semi-humanistic
bookhand, north Italian; Lombard decoration. Autograph, with autograph
if. 109r-130v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.
marginalia; probably written in late 1437 or early 1438.
Iter 1: 299E; Inventario Ceruti, 3: 582. ff. 2r-19r: Rep. I, tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with preface [Text 39] and
argumentulum but not chapter divisions; Pier Candido’s name has been erased
* 1 6 2 ]----- , I 99 sup. Mbr., s. XV med., 61 leaves. Round humanistic as the translator but is restored by another hand. if. 19v-39v: Rep. V, tr. Pier
bookhand, Mihinese decoration. Candido Decembrio (name erased and restored as above), preceded by his
ff. lr-41r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. argumentulum and followed by one of the letters of transmission from Duke
700 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 701

Humfrev to Decembrio, inc. Ea nobis semper ( = Borsa [1904], pp. 513-514); no ff. 3v, 4r, 4v, 5r, 5v, 6 r: Metrical translations o f Homer excerpted from Decem­
chapter divisions. brio’s translation of the Rep. (communication of G. N. Knauer).
Zaccaria (1959), pp. 180, 186; Iter 1 : 340D; Cipriani, Codd. miniati, p. 115; San- Porro, Catalogo, p. 130; Iter 1: 363D; Santoro, I codd., pp. 205-206, no. 323; see
tinello, p. 128, note 1 ; Inventano Cemti, 4: 662-663; Sammut. p. 140; above, vol Borsa (1893b), pp. 438-439, Ep. XVII ad fin.
2, p. 413.
174]----- , 832. S. XV. Owned by Apostolo Zeno; a twin of no. 7, according
*168]----- , R 88 sup. Cart., misc., s. XV, 186 leaves. Several hands, including to Porro. Lost since the Second World War.
that of Pier Candido Decembrio, who owned the codex; text ending on f. 33r
dated 15 June 1437; numerous specimens of Decembrio’s Greek hand. ff. 49r-52r: Cri. tr. Bruni, first version, f. 52v: A p . , tr. Bruni, first version, be­
ginning and ending only.
If. 87v-91v (another hand); Cri. , tr. Bruni, first version, ff. 108r-lllv (another
hand): Ax. , tr. Cencio de’Rustici. Porro, Catalogo, p. 50; Bertalot 2: 270-271; Iter 1: 361E; p. 51, above.
R. Sabbadini, Studi ital. difilol. class. 11 (1903): 259-263; Mostra di codici autograft,
with a preface by D. Fava (exh. cat., Modena, 1932), p. 49, no. 73; A. Martini *175] MODENA, Biblioteca Estense Est. lat. 219 (a P 6 , 24). Mbr., misc., s.
and D. Bassi, Cat. codd. graec. Bibl. Ambros., 2 (Milan, 1906), pp. 827-828, no. XV 1/2, 89 leaves. Round humanistic bookhand. Florentine (ff. lr-50v) and
715; Bertalot 2: 270; Zaccaria (1959), p. 181, note 3; Iter 1 : 340D; Inventario Italian gothic bookhand (ff. 51r-89r).
Ceruti 4: 668-670; Berti, p. 151; Sammut, p. 37, note 53; above, pp. 51, 421. ff. 69r-89r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.

*1 6 9 ]----- , S 14 sup. Cart., s. XV mecl., 172 leaves. Written by Marsilio Iter 1: 370E.
Ficino in 1454, with extensive marginalia throughout.
*176]----- , Est. lat. 469 (a X 1, 12). Mbr., s. XV 4/4, 349 leaves. Sienese (?)
ff. 99r-145r: Grg., tr. Bruni. illumination. From the Corvinian Library; acquired by the Este in 1560.
Suppl. 1 : LIV; Iter 1 : 342D; Kristeller, Studi ... Tammaro De Marinis, p. 29; Inven­
tario Ceruti 5: 6 : Mostra, pp. 7-8. Contents as in no. 77.
D. Fava, La Bibl. Estense nel suo sviluppo stonco (Modena, 1925), pp. 268-269, no.
*170]----- , V 32 sup. Cart., misc., s. XV-XVIII, 79 leaves. Several hands. 86; Suppl. 1: XXXIV; Iter 1: 381D; Fava and Salmi, I MSS miniati della Bibl.
f. 24v (s. XV): Ep. X, X II , only, tr. Bruni. Est. di Modena (1938), p. 91, no. 161.

Iter 1: 344D; Inventario Ceruti 5: 250-252. + 1 7 7 ]----- , Est. lat. 1177 (a F 2, 42). Mbr., s. XV, 49 leaves. Semigothic
script. Written at Castiglione by Johannes Teotonicus in 1439. Formerly
*171] MILAN, Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense A G IX 41. Cart., s. XVI, 44 Murano 72. Marginal notes in a sixteenth-century hand.
leaves, partly printed. Title page: “ Collegii Societatis Jesu Mediolani.”
Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.
Platonis Lysis in Greek, [ed. Pier Vettori] (impr. Florence: Giunta, 1551), 23
leaves, with an anonymous MS Latin translation on interleaved sheets. J. B. Mittarellius, Bibl. codd. XISS Monasteni s. Michaehs Venetiarum prope
Iter 1 : 358D; cf. BMC 191: 208. Murianum (Venice, 1779), no. 72; Iter 1: 373E.

*172] MILAN, Biblioteca Trivulziana 683 (E 49). Cart., s. XV 1/2, 37 leaves. 1 7 8 ] ---- , Campori App. 221 (y Y 6 , 21). Mbr., s. XV, 106 unnumbered
Semigothic script, north Italian; a few notabilia. leaves. From the collection of Minutoli Tegrimi.
If. lr-16r: Rep. /, tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with preface to Duke Humfrev. Phdr., tr. Bruni, with argument. A p . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument.
ff. 16r-34v: Rep. V, tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with preface to Amadeo. f. Cri. , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument. E p . , tr. Bruni, with preface and
35r: letter of transmission from Duke Humfrey to Decembrio, inc. Ea nobis argument.
semper ( = Borsa [1904], pp. 513-514). R. Vandini, Appendice puma al catalogo dei codd. e MSS posseduti dal March. Giuseppe
G. Porro, Cat. det codd. MSS della Bibl. Trivulziana (Turin, 1884), p. 350; Zac­ Campori (Modena, 1886), p. 8 6 ; Bertalot 2: 270; Iter 1: 392D; Berti, p. 185.
caria (1959), p. 180, note 3; C. Santoro, I codd. medioevali della Bibl. Tnvulz.
(Milan, 1965), p. 152, no. 248; Sammut, p. 140; above, p. 413. 179] MONREALE, Biblioteca Comunale XXV F 8 . Mbr., misc., s. XV, 199
leaves.
*173]----- , 793 (G 43). Cart., s. XV 3/4, 33 leaves. “ Epigrammata et epistole
metrice P. Candidi feliciter ad illustrem Inichum Davalum magnum camera- ff. 77r-135v: E p . , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
rium.” Autograph. C. A. Garufi, Cat. illustr. del labulano di S. Maria Nuova in XIonreale, Documenti
 702 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 703

per servire alia storia di Sicilia, 19 (Palermo, 1902), pp. 231-232, no. 15; Iter ff. lr-161v: Rep., tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with prefaces, argumentula et capita
1: 393D. librorum, Brevis annotatio, and letters of transmission of Decembrio, Francesco
Pizolpasso, and Duke Humfrev.
180] MONTPELLIER, Bibliotheque de l’Ecole de Medicine 417. Mbr., ss. Halm and Laubmann, Catalogus, 1.3 (1873), p. 8, no. 46; Zaccaria (1959), p.
XV-XVI. From the Bibliotheque Albani. 180.
Ap., tr. Bruni, second version, with argument. Cri., tr. Bruni, second version,
with argument. *185]----- , CLM 13572. Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2, 161 leaves. Written in Ger­
many, notabilia. Left by Canon Paulus Megk of Ratisbon to the Dominican
Cat. gen. 1: 452. convent of Ratisbon in 1477.
ff. 35v-51r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 55v-76r: Ap., tr.
+ 181] MONTREAL (Canada), McGill University Library H52.Bd6. Cart., Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 76v-87v: Cri., tr. Bruni, second ver­
misc., s. XVIII-XIX, unnumbered leaves. Formerly Phillipps 4829. A collec­ sion, with argument. If. 88r-148v: Grg., tr. Bruni, no argument.
tion ol extracts from medieval manuscripts dealing with the history of England.
Halm and Laubmann, Catalogus 2.2 (1876), p. 113, no. 985; Bertalot 2: 268,
Relevant leaves (tour pages, s. XVIII) contain extracts from “ Mr. Henry
YVorsley’s MSS" (i.e. Harl. 1705, no. 141 above). 270; Iter 3: 619; Berti, p. 187.

Two letters of transmission from Duke Humfrev to Pier Candido Decembrio re­ MURANO, Bibliotheca Monasterii s. Michaelis 72. See no. 177.
garding the latter’s translation of the Republic. (1) inc. Ea nobis semper ( = Borsa
[1904], pp. 513-514) and (2) inc. Ut alias nosti (ibid., p. 514). *186] NAPLES, Biblioteca Nazionale V B 34. Mbr., misc., s. XV 1/4, 123
Communication of Dr. Richard Virr. leaves. Round humanistic bookhand, Florentine; Florentine decoration. Proba­
bly before Poggio’s rediscovery ol a complete Quintilian at San Gall in 1416,
as appears from the following note on 1. 122v at the end ol a fragment of Quin­
*182] MUNICH, Baverische Staatsbibliothek CLM 225. Cart., misc., s. XV, tilian: “ Huic profecto coniung<en>dus est textus ille qui < in > nostris
258 leaves. Written at Hamburg bv Heinrich Stolberger for Hartmann Schedel codicibus prius habebatur, quod clar< e> liquidoque probatur <acu>tis
in 1479. mentis oculis intu <en > tibus. Principium vero huius X libri nequaquam hoc
11. 7v-43v: Grg. , tr. Bruni, with argument. If. 47v: Phd. , tr. Bruni, excerpts only, < o > p in o r esse quod subducitur.
ff. 48r-79v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 101r-l06v: Cri., tr. Bruni, First ver­ ff. 41 v-102r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and letter to Niccoli (Mehus 1.8).
sion. f. 108r: letter of transmission [Text 20). f. 108r: letter of transmission
[Text 21]. 11. Illr-248r: Rep. , tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with prefaces, Bertalot 2: 396; Iter 1: 400E.
argumentula et capita librorum. Brevis annotatio. and letters of transmission of
*187]------, V C 39. Cart., misc., ss. XV-XVI, 400 leaves. Several hands, one
Decembrio. Francesco Pizolpasso, and Duke Humfrev of Gloucester.
of which belongs to Antonio da Rho.
Halm and Laubmann, Cat. codd. latt. Bibl. Reg. Monac. 2 (1892), p. 55; Borsa
ff. 112r-115r (hand of Antonio da Rho): Ep., tr. Bruni, two excerpts and the
(1904), p. 510n.; R. Stauber, Die Schedelsche Bibliothek (Freiburg i. B., 1908), pp.
68. 242-243; Bertalot 2: 268; Garin (1955), p. 348; Weiss, p. 57; Zaccaria preface, complete.
(1959), p. 180; Sammut, p. 139; Iter 3: 613; above, p. 413. Iter 1: 414-415D; F. Fossier, La bibliotheque Farnese (Rome, 1982), pp. 229-237.

*188]------, V F 5. Cart., s. XVI, 10 unnumbered leaves. Written by Nicolaus

*183]----- , CLM 304. Mbr., s. XV, 178 leaves. Coat of arms of Giannozzo
or Agnolo Manetti. Owned by Hans Fugger (s. XVI). Scutellius of Trent on 13 April 1525 at the house of Giles of Viterbo in Rome.

If. 1r-168r: Lg. , tr. George of Trebizond. ff. 168r-178r: Epin. , tr. George of De iusto, tr. Nicolaus Scutellius, O. E. S. A., with a preface to Gabriel ol Venice,
Trebizond. prior general of the O. E. S. A.

Halm and Laubmann, Catalogus. 1.1: 76; P. Lehmann, Eine Geschichte der alien Iter 1: 418D.
Fuggerbibliolheken (Tuebingen, 1956), pp. 70, 105, 116; Trapezuntiana, p. 35; for
the coat ot arms, cl. A. Marucchi, Melanges Tisserant VII (ST 237), no. 77. * 1 8 9 ]----- , VIII E 46. Mbr., s. XV, unnumbered leaves. Arms of Inigo
Davalos. Last folio: “ Scriptum Janue MCCCCXXXIII die XXVIII Januarii
manu Antonii de Crivellis Mediolani civis.” Owned by Antonio Seripandi.
* 1 8 4 ]----- , CLM 5347. Cart., s. XV 2/2, 298 leaves. Several hands.
humanistic script, with Decembrio’s notabilia. From the chapter library at Phd. , tr. Bruni, with preface and letter to Niccoli (Mehus 1.8).
Chiemsee. Bertalot 2: 396; Iter 1: 404E.
704 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 705

*190]----- , VIII F 41. Mbr., s. XVI, leaves unnumbered. Italic bookhand, Ferrara?), dated 1465. From the Bibliotheca Dugganiana (1761) and E. H.
with miniature of the two hospites with the figure of Philosophia above. Arms of Alton.
Matteo Acquaviva d’Aragona (d. 1529).
ff. 149r-191v: Phd. , fragmentary at the end, tr. Bruni, with preface.
Lg., tr. Ficino, extensive excerpts.
Iter 7003 ts; Hankins, “ Bruni MSS” , no. 55.
Iter 1: 427D.
*196]----- , Marston MS 78. Mbr., s. XV 3/4, 77 leaves, written and decorated
*191]----- , VIII G 51. Mbr., s. XV 1/4, 96 leaves. Italian gothic bookhand, in Florence, round humanistic bookhand, notabilia. From the library of Charles
north Italian decoration. Marginal notes in the hand of Gasparino Barzizza. Fairfax Murray.
Owned by Janus Parrhasius (who purchased it in Milan) and Antonio
Seripandi. ff. lr-59v: Phd. , tr. Bruni, with preface.
ff. lr-96v: Rep., tr. Chrysoloras and Uberto Decembrio, with prologue and Bond, p. 73; Iter 7031 ts; Hankins, “ Bruni MSS” , no. 61.
poem.
* 1 9 7 ]----- , Marston MS 250. Mbr., misc., s. XV. Written in Lucca by
Iter 1: 428D; above, p. 412.
Guilelmus Rustichellus a Pisis, 1434-1435, decorated initials, coat of arms ol
Rustichelli family. Purchased by T. E. Marston from Laurence Witten in 1959.
*192]----- , VIII G 56. Mbr., s. XV 1/4. Italian gothic hand, perhaps Roman.
A collection of works about Socrates, made up out of a larger collection of pp. 98-117: Cri., tr. Bruni, first version.
Bruni’s works. Owned by Janus Parrhasius (who purchased it in Milan) and Bond, p. 93 (who wrongly identifies Xenophon’s Apology as Plato’s and gives the
Antonio Seripandi. wrong foliation); Iter 7034D ts: Hankins, "Bruni MSS” , no. 70; above, p. 51.
If. lr-llr: Ap. , tr. Bruni, first version, ff. llv-16r: Cri. , tr. Bruni, first version,
with an anonymous argument in a second hand [Text 12]. ff. 17r-40v: Phd., tr. *198] NEW YORK CITY, Library of Mrs. Phyllis Gordan, MS 75. Mbr.,
Bruni, with preface. misc., s. XV, 138 leaves. Three hands: semigothic, humanistic cursive, and
Bertalot 2: 270; Iter 1: 405E; Berti, p. 152; above, p. 51n. round humanistic. From the scnttoio ol Pier Candido Decembrio, with
marginalia in his hand. Formerly Phillipps 9586.
* 193]----- , XIII G 33. Cart., misc., s. XV, in two parts. Various hands. Dated ff. lr-40v: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 41r-112v: Phd., tr.
‘‘a. D. 1441” on ff. 86r and 93r, but relevant portions are s. XV 2/2. From S. Bruni, with preface.
Francesco di Capestrano.
Bibliotheca Phillippica, p. 153; Sothebv Sale Catalog (1896), lot 953; Bond, p.
1. 128r: Ep. IX, Italian version, inc. Vindero ad nui Archippo et Philonide li 401; Iter ts 7277; Hankins, “ Bruni MSS” , no. 83; above, p. 421.
quale portaro la epistola. f. 128v: Ep. IX, tr. Bruni. f. 129r: Ep. XI, Italian ver­
sion, inc. Scripsemmo ad ti anche primo che fa multo ad quello che tu dici. f. 199] NUERNBERG, Stadtbibliothek, Nachlass Pirckheimer PP 8. Cart., s.
129v: Ep. XI, tr. Bruni. f. 130r: Ep. IV, Italian version, inc. Penso serra XVI, autograph.
manifesto per ogne tempo che la mia stemperata (based on Bruni’s Latin).
Spuria, tr. Pirckheimer, preface to Bernard Adelmann only [printed in Cat. B,
Kristeller IMU 4 (1961): 181-200; Iter 1: 432D; C. Cenci, MSSfrancescani della no. 38], fragmentary.
Bibl. Naz. di Napoli, Spicilegium Bonavent. 7 (1971), p. 967f., no. 627g.
Heerdegen, Cat. des MSS de la succession de Willibald Pirckheimer faisant partie de la
*194]----- , Gia Viennesi 42. Mbr., misc., s. XV med., 158 leaves. Written by collection de M. le Baron Sigismund Chretien Joachim Haller de Hallerstein (Sale cat.,
Marino Tomacello. Passed from the monastery of San Severino (Naples) to the Nuernberg, 1861), p. 22; Iter 3: 672E.
Bibliotheca Palatina in Vienna (no. 298); returned to Naples in 1923.
2 0 0 ] ---- , PP 246-248. Cart., s. XVI (ca. 1502-3), 12 leaves. Autograph.
ff. 130r-158r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
ff. 3v-5: Halcyon, tr. Pirckheimer.
Cat. codd. philol. Bibl. Pal. Vindobon. (Vienna, 1836), p. 136, no. 237; Tab. codd.
MSS., in Bibl. Pal. Vindobon. asserv. 1 (1864), p. 41; E. Martini, Atti del R. Accad. Heerdegen, Catalogue, p. 16; Iter 3: 672E.
di Archeol., Lett., e Belle arti di Napoli, n.s., 9 (1926): 175-176; Iter 1: 437E; Besomi
and Regoliosi, Valle epistole, pp. 52-54. 2 0 1 ] ---- , PP 254. Cart., s. XVI, 23 leaves. Partly autograph.
Ax., tr. Pirckheimer.
*195] NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, Yale University, Beinecke Library
313. Mbr., misc., s. XV. Three humanistic bookhands, the third (ff. 149r-207r, Heerdegen, Catalogue, p. 16; Iter 3: 670E
706 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 707

2 0 2 ] -----, PP 254, App. 1 (formerly PP 364, Box I, fasc. 1). Cart., s. XVI, ff. 39v-44v: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with prefaces to Giordano Orsini and
10 leaves. Autograph. Velleius.
Erx., tr. Pirckheimer. F. Madan, Summary Catalogue, 5: 344, no. 27707; A. G. Watson, Cat. of Dated
Heerdegen, Catalogue, p. 21; Iter 3: 672E. and Datable MSS in Oxford Libraries (Oxford, 1984), p. 149.

*208]------, Canon, class, lat. 163. Cart., s. XV, 142 leaves. Written by several
2 0 3 ] -----, PP 333. Cart., s. XVI. Autograph draft.
amanuenses of Ficino in 1464 for presentation to Cosimo de’Medici.
Spuria, tr. Pirckheimer, preface to Adelmann only [Cat. B, no. 38].
f. lr-v: Marsilio Ficino, Preface to Cosimo de’Medici [Text 66]. ff. 2r-5r: Hip-
Heerdegen, Catalogue, p. 20; Iter 3: 672E. pareh.. ff. 5v-9r: Amat. ff. 9r-14v: Thg. 15r-30r: Men. ff. 30v-45v: Ale. I. ff.
45v-51r: Ale. 2. ff. 51v-56v: Min. ff. 57r-65r: Euthphr. ff. 65r-88r: Prm. ff.
20 4 ] ---- , PP 364. Cart., s. XVI, 3 boxes containing 20 fascicules and an ap­ 88r-112v: Phlb. All translated by Ficino, with his arguments. Then (f.
pendix. Autograph. 113v-114r) excerpts from the Euthd. and Tht., tr. Ficino. ff. 132v-138v: Def., tr.
Ficino, without preface, ff. 138v-143r: Ax., tr. Ficino, without preface.
Box I, fasc. 1, ff. 17r-22r: Erx., tr. Pirckheimer. f. 23r: Ax., tr. Pirckheimer,
fragment. Box I, fasc. 2 (no. 5): Erx., tr. Pirckheimer. Box I, fasc. 2, no. 6: F. Madan, Summary Catalogue, 4: 321, no. 18744; H. O. Coxe, Cat. codd. MSS
Spuria, tr. Pirckheimer, preface to Adelmann only, with list of Platonic dialogues Bibl. Bodl., 3: Canonicianos (Oxford, 1854), col. 182; Suppl. 1: XXXVII;
translated by Pirckheimer. Box I, fasc. 2 (no. 16): lust., Virt., Demod., tr. Pirck­ Kristeller (1956), p. 161; Kristeller (1966), pp. 44-45; Mostra, p. 62; /ter 4:429;
heimer. Box II, fasc. 7, no. 4: Virt. (fragment), Demod., Sis., Clit., Def., tr. Pir­ above, p. 300 n.
ckheimer.
Heerdegen, Catalogue, p. 22; Iter 3: 671-672D. *2 0 9 ]------, Canon, misc. 225. Cart., misc., s. XV 3/4. Northeastern Italy.
Relevant leaves have watermark similar to Briquet 6270-72 [Veneto, 1457-64],
Later belonged to Venetian collector Jacopo Soranzo (1686-1761).
205] OXFORD, Bodleian Library, Ashmole 789. Cart., misc., s. XV, 375
leaves. f. 78r: Ep. VI only, tr. Anonymus Vaticanus [see Cat. C, no. 1].
Letters of transmission regarding Pier Candido Decembrio’s translation of the Coxe, Catalogus, 3: 597-605 (who incorrectly attributes the translation to Bruni);
Rep. for Duke Humfrev, as follows: f. 218r-v: Francesco Pizolpasso to Duke F. Madan, Summary Catalogue, 4: 407, no. 19701; Bertalot 1: 44; 2: 36-37, 42,
Humfrev [Text 37]. ff. 218v-219r: Decembrio to Duke Humfrey, inc. Clarissime 44-45, 49, 411; Besomi and Regoliosi, Valle epistole, p. 56 (who incorrectly at­
apud Italos ( = Borsa [1904], pp. 512-513. f. 219r: Duke Humfrey to Decem­ tribute the translation to Bruni); below, p. 797n.
brio, inc. Ea nobis semper ( = ibid., pp. 513-514). f. 219r: Duke Humfrey to
Decembrio, inc. Ut alias nostris ( = ibid., p. 514). f. 219v: Decembrio to Duke * 2 1 0 ]------, Hatton 105. Mbr. misc. s. XV 2/2, 105 leaves. English hand.
Humfrey, inc. Sicuti viator ( = ibid., pp. 514-515). Perhaps written in Ferrara, 1458.6
F. Madan, et al., Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodl. Libr. 2.2 ff. 78r-87v: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with prefaces to Velleius (fragmentary
(Oxford, 1937), nos. 6748, 6995, 7020, 7823/4; Hunt and de la Mare, Duke at the beginning) and Giordano Orsini.
Humfrey, p. 16, no. 27; Iter 4:246.
F. Madan, Summary Catalogue, 2.2: 814-815, no. 4054; A. G. Watson, Dated and
Datable MSS, p. 151; above, p. 96.
*206]----- , Auct. F.6.2. Cart., misc., s. XV, 212 leaves. Copied by Thomas
Woodforde from a Duke Humfrey codex. Formerly belonged to Thomas
*211] OXFORD, Balliol College Library 131. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 177 leaves.
Bodley, Thomas Hynde and John Dee.
Left to Balliol by William Gray, Bp. of Ely (legate in Rome, 1449-1454).
ff. 6v-62r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 63r-92r: A p., tr. Bruni,
second version, with argument.
F. Madan, Summary Catalogue, 2.1: 230; Bertalot 2: 271; Sammut, pp. 127, 136. (p. 82, above). As there is no other manuscript of Cencio’s text known to me dated Fer­
rara, 1458, the likelihood is that the Hatton MS was copied from the Auct. MS or vice
*207]----- , Bodl. 881. Cart., misc., s. XV. Possibly written in Ferrara, 1458.5 versa. This is further suggested by the variants in the two MSS which usually agree
against the text printed by Bertalot (2: 134-135), e.g., line 5 curandum sanandum Bert.)
transp. Auct., H a lt. ; 10 hominum Bert. ] homini Auct., H a lt. ; 14 est post munus Auct. H a tt.}
18 reverendiss. Bert. ] christianiss. Auct. Hatt. ', 25 suscipias om. Auct. Hatt. ', etc. The text
1 Watson rejects the colophon, citing an almost identical one in Hatton 105 (no. 210), of Auct. is slightly better than Hatt. (e.g. line 1-2 sanandis Auct. ] salvandis H alt.), which
and argues that the date must have been copied from the exemplar. But the translation suggests that the latter may be the codex descriptus.
was undoubtedly made before 1458 and was almost certainly written in Bologna, 1436/7 6 See no. 207 and note.
708 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 709

ff. 14r-19v: Ax., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, fragmentary at the beginning, ff. 20r-30v Ep. I-IV only, tr. Ficino.
Euthphr., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface and argument.
G. Rossi, I MSS della Bibl. Com. di Palermo, 1 (1873), p. 229; L. Boglino, I MSS
H. O. Coxe, Cat. codd. MSS qui in collegus aulisque Oxon. hodie adserv. 1 (Oxford della Bibl. Com. di Palermo 3 (1892), p. 358; Iter 2: 24E.
1852), pp. 38-39; Lockwood, pp. 57-59; Garin (1955), p. 368; R. A. B. Mynors'
Cat. of the MSS of Balliol Coll. (Oxford, 1963), pp. 110-111; Iter 4:244; above pp 2 1 8 ] -----, Qq H 117. Cart., misc., s. XVIII.
88, 96, 403, 436.
Ep., tr. Ficino.
*212]----- , 315. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 150 leaves. Written at Oxford ca. 1442 Rossi, I MSS, 1.2: 200-203; Boglino, I MSS, 1: 446; 3: 358; Iter 2: 24E.
for William Gray; humanistic bookhand; English and German paper and
decoration. 2 1 9 ] -----, 2 Qq C 79. Cart., misc., s. XV, unnumbered leaves.
ff. 62v-67r: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Velleius. Phd., tr. Bruni, ending (107C-118A) only.
Coxe (1852), p. 103; Bertalot 2: 134; Mynors, Catalogue, pp. XXVII, 332-333; Rossi, I MSS, 2.2: 27; Iter 2: 26-27D.
Hunt and de la Mare, Duke Humfrey, p. 25, no. 40; above, p. 96.
220] PAMPLONA, Biblioteca de la Catedral 22. Mbr., s: XV, unnumbered
*213] OXFORD, Magdalen College Library 39. Mbr., s. XV, 155 leaves.
leaves.
Written in Italy after 1437 by the English scribe Thomas Candour on Italian
parchment; English decoration. Phdr., tr. Bruni. Phd., tr. Bruni, fragmentary at the beginning and the end. Ax.,
tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Giordano Orsini.
ff. 35r-77r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 97r-100v: Xenophon, Apologia
Socratis, tr. Bruni. A. S. Hunt, Centralblatt fuer Bibliothekswesen 14 (1897), p. 286.
Coxe (1852), 2.2: 23-24; Hunt and de la Mare, Duke Humfrey, pp. 33-34, no.
*221] PARIS, Bibliotheque Nationale Suppl. gr. 212. Cart., misc., s. XV-XVI,
57; A. C. de la Mare and B. C. Barker-Benfield, MSS at Oxford: Exh. in Memory
239 leaves. Several hands, including those of Manuel Gregoropoulos, Marsilio
of R. W. Hunt (Oxford, 1980), pp. 95-96; A. G. Watson, Dated and Datable MSS,
Ficino, Ficino Ficini, Luca Fabiani, and Johannes Reuchlin. Used by Aldus for
p. 137, no. 823; above, p. 96.
the editio pnnceps [Cat. B, no. 10].
*214] OXFORD, New College Library 286 (deposited in the Bodleian). Cart., ff. 186r-189v: Preface to Ficino’s translations of Speusippus (ps. Plato),
misc., s. XV, 297 leaves. Various hands. Alcinous and Pythagoras opuscula, addressed to Giovanni Cavalcanti, ff.
ff. 136r-149r: Ap., tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 149r-156r: Cn., 193v-202r (partly autograph): D ef, tr. Ficino. ff. 205r-211v (autograph, with
tr. Bruni, second version, with argument. corrections): Ax., tr. Ficino, with preface to Piero de’Medici. 1. 237r: an excerpt
from the Phdr. in Greek in Ficino’s hand.
Coxe (1852), 1.7: 100-102; Bertalot 2: 270.
H. Omont, Cat. des MSS grecs 3 (1888), pp. 232-233; Suppl. 1: XXXVIII;
*215] PADUA, Biblioteca del Seminario 119. Mbr., misc., s. XV 1/2. Kristeller (1956), p. 162; M. Sicherl, Scriptorium 16 (1962): 55-56, 61; M.
Semihumanistic hand. Sicherl, Akad. d. Wissensch. u. d. Lit., Mainz, Abhdl. d. geistes-u. sozialwissensch. Kl.
1 (1963), pp. 765-798; Kristeller, Studi ... Tammaro De Marinis, 3: 30; M.
ff. 142v-153v: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with prefaces to Velleius and Gior­ Sicherl, IMU (1977): 323-339; M. Sicherl, Johannes Cuno (Heidelberg, 1978),
dano Orsini. pp. 170-179; Mostra, pp. 45, 62, 128, 132; Iter 3: 216; S. Gentile in Supplementum
Garin (1955), p. 369 (who gives the wrong shelf-mark); Iter 2: 8E. Festivum, pp. 340, 342n., 343, 359, 380.

*216]----- , 141. Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2, 188 leaves. Several hands, one of *222]----- , lat. 2598. Cart., misc., s. XV, 152 leaves. Several hands, including
which belongs to Bernardino Speroni, doctor of medicine at Padua. Fly-leaf: “ Si that of Petrus Collensis (f. 125v). f. 86v: “ finita prima Februarii 1452.” Rele­
quis huius libri scriptorem noscere vellet/ Bernardinus scripsit Speronus nomine vant folios have marginalia in a second (s. XV 2/2) hand.
dictus.’’ f. 188v: “ Questo libro sie de Bernardino fiolo de messer Bortolamio ff. 126r-135v: Phd., fragmentary at the end, tr. Bruni, with preface.
Speroni.’’
Cat. codd. MSS Bibl. Reg. (1744), 3: 302; Cat. gen. des. MSS latins (Pans, 1939-),
ff. 96v-103r (hand of Speroni): Cri., tr. Bruni, First version.
2: 539.
Bertalot 2: 270; B. Bertolaso, Minerva medica (1961), p. 33; Iter 2: 9E; Berti,
p. 152. * 2 2 3 ] ----- , lat. 6279. Mbr., s. XV 3/4, 55 leaves. Humanistic cursive
bookhand, Florentine, with Florentine decoration; Aragonese coat ot arms.
217] PALERMO, Biblioteca Comunale Qq E 178. Cart., s. XVIII. From the library of the Kings of Aragon.
710 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 711

Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface. * 2 2 8 ]------, lat. 8606. Mbr., s. XV 3/4, 186 leaves. Round humanistic
Catalogus (1744), 4: 223-224; T. De Marinis, La Bibl. napoletana dei Re d ’Aragona, bookhand, Florentine, notabilia in hand of copyist, Florentine decoration.
Supplemento (Verona, 1969), 1: 78. ff. 47r-130r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Catalogus (1744), 4: 475; Iter 3: 225D.
*224]----- , lat. 6567. Cart., s. XV med. Semihumanistic bookhand. Owned
and probably copied by Antonio Cassarino. f. 36v: “ Antonii Siculi” . (Not *229]----- , lat. 8610. Cart., s. XV. Italian gothic bookhand, notabilia. f. 46v:
Panormita; cp. owner’s mark of no. 340.) “ Finitum Florentie VII Kalendas Septembr. M CCCCXXXIIII.” f. 77v: “ Ex­
ff. lr-18v: Ap., tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 19r-27v: Cri,, tr. plicit liber Leonardi Aratini per me Lodouicum Gati de Bugella sub anno
Bruni, second version, with argument. Domini MCCCCLIII inditione prima et die vero XXVII mensis Jullii.’’
Catalogus (1744), 4: 257; Bertalot 2: 270; Berti, p. 187; above, p. 428. ff. lr-46v: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Catalogus (1744), 4: 475.
*225]----- , lat. 6568. Mbr., s. XV, 200 leaves. Written in 1472 by Gherardo
del Ciriagio in Florence for Cardinal Giovanni d’Aragona. Then given to Card. *230]------, lat. 8611. Mbr., s. XV 2/4, 40 leaves. Written by the scribe of Vat.
Georges d’Amboise by Guillaume Brigonnet, bp. of Lodeve (1489-1516); the lat. 10669 [no. 356 below], Milanese decoration, notabilia in several hands.
former’s coat of arms has been painted over the Aragonese arms. Supposedly
copied “ ex originalibus dicti domini Leonardi’’ but this is doubtful in view of Fly-leaf: poem of transmission from Bernardino Dardano (ca. 1472-1535) to
the MS’s place in the recension of the Phd. (communication of E. Berti). Etienne Poncher (1446-1524), Bp. of Paris (el. 1503), chancellor of the Duchy
of Milan after 1503 [Text 19], ff. lr-40r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and
f. 2v: Letter of transmission from Brigonnet to d’Amboise [Text 18]. ff. 3r-57r: argument.
Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 58r-73r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argu­
ment. ff. 75r-138v: Grg., tr. Bruni, with argument, ff. 139r-160v: Ap., tr. Bruni, Catalogus (1744), 4: 476; on Dardano see Affo, Scritton parmigiani (1791), 3:
second version, with argument, ff. 160v-171r: Cn., tr. Bruni, second version, 239-253; Tiraboschi, Storia della lett. ital. (1812) 7.4: 1356-1357.
with argument.
* 2 3 1 ]----- , lat. 8656. Mbr., s. XV, 78 leaves. Florentine illumination and
Catalogus (1744), p. 257; L. Delisle, Cabinet des MSS, 1: 251; De Marinis, La Bibl. round humanistic script, ca. 1470-1480. From Colbert.
napoletana, Suppl. 1: p. 78, plates 73, 74; B. L. Ullman, Origin and Development
oj Hum. Script (Rome, 1960), p. 115; C. Samaran and R. Marichal, Catalogue ff. 2r-77r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
des MSS en ecnture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste (Paris, Catalogus (1744), 4: 481; Iter 3: 228D.
1959-68), 2: 357; Berti, p. 187; A. C. de la Mare, in II libro e il testo, ed. C.
Questa and R. Raffaeli (Urbino, 1984), p. 284.
*232]----- , lat. 8657. Mbr., s. XV, 52 leaves. French hand and decoration.
Owned by Guillaume Virot of Dijon (s. XVI) and Philibert de la Mare (s.
*226]----- , lat. 6582. Cart., misc., s. XV, 123 leaves. Bastarda script, f. 123v: XVII). Scattered notes in the hand of Virot.
“ Huius libri possessor est Iohani [jir]’’. From Colbert.
ff. 3r-52r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
ff. 60r-70r: Ax. , tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with prefaces to Velleius and Giordano
Orsini. Catalogus (1744), 4: 481; Iter 3: 228D.
Catalogus (1744), p. 259; Bertalot 2: 134. * 2 3 3 ]------, lat. 10191. Cart., s. XV 3/4, 220 leaves. Round humanistic
bookhand, notabilia.
*227]----- , lat. 6729A. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 96 leaves. English gothic hand and ff. 4r-220r: Rep., tr. Cassarino, with Isagogicon in Platonis vitam et disciplinam.
English decoration. Owner’s notes: (f. lv) “ Roberti Aisthecimi’’; (f. lv)
“ Donatus Clementi de Torta ab herede suo M. Roberto Aysthecimo’’; (f. 2r) BEC 23: 506; Iter 3: 243.
“ Liber magistri Ioannis Gunthorp decani Wellensis anno Christi 1473.’’
ff. 55v-60r: Ax. , tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with prefaces to Velleius and Giordano * 2 3 4 ]------, lat. 10192. Cart., s. XV 2/2, 163 leaves. Humanistic cursive
Orsini. ff. Ap. , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 73v-79r: C n . , tr. bookhand.
Bruni, second version, with argument. ff. lr-148r: Lg., tr. George of Trebizond, without preface, ff. 148v-158r: Epin.,
Catalogus (1744), 4: 527; Bertalot 2: 270; Berti, p. 188; Iter 3: 219-220D; above, tr. George of Trebizond.
p. 96; on Gunthorpe, see Weiss, pp. 122-127, who does not mention this MS. BEC 23: 501; Iter 3: 243; Trapezuntiana, p. 44.
 712 P A R T HI C A TA LO G S 713

*235]----- , lat. 10400. Cart, and mbr., various centuries (fragment volume) 2 4 1 ] -----. Parm. 2330. Cart., misc., s. XV, -44 leaves. Written 3 September
Relevant leaves written in a French bastarda, s. XV 2/2. 1448 by Jacobus de Roma “ apud Romitorium novum Mont. Malbe (?)
Tabodo.
ff. 66r-75v: Grg., tr. Bruni, fragmentary at the end. ff. 76r-88r: Phd., tr. Bruni
with preface. ff. 8v-18r: Ap., tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 18r-22v: Cri., tr.
BEC 23: 506; Iter 3: 245. Bruni, second version, with argument.
MSS Codd. Hebraici Bibl. I. B. De Rossi ... accurate ab eodem descnpti et illustrati. Ac-
cedit appendix qua continentur MSS codd. reliqui aharum linguarum (Parma, 1803), 3:
*236]----- , lat. 15084. Mbr., misc., s. XV. French bastarda hand, French
180, no. 36; Bertalot 2: 270-271; Iter 2: 50D; Berti, p. 185.
decoration. From the abbey of St. Victor in Paris, coat of arms.
ft. 41r-82r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface. 242] ---- , Carteggio di Lucca (Autograft Palatini), Box 5, primo supplemento.
BEC 30: 71; Iter 3: 236; G. Ouy and V. Gerz von Buren, Cat. de la bibl. de I’ab- Cart., s. XV, four unnumbered leaves. Autograph draft, with corrections,
baye de St. Victor (1514) (Paris, 1983), p. 350. datable to 1464. The first half of no. 239. The argumenta in no. 208 are copied
from this MS.
*237]----- , lat. 16580. Mbr., s. XV, 96 leaves. Written in Italv, coat of arms. Ficino, argument to his translations of the Hipparch., Amat., Thg., Men., Ale. 1,
Gothic bookhand, with autograph notes at the beginning of Guillaume Fichet and the preface to Cosimo de’Medici [Text 66],
and Jean Chouard, chancellor of Calabria. A gift from Fichet to Chouard. This Kristeller (1966), passim; Iter 2: 40D; D. Frioli et al., Cat. di MSSjilosofici nelle
MS used as the basis for Sorbonne edition of Bruni’s letters [Cat. B, no. 1], bibl. ital. (Florence, 1981), 2: 165.
Arms of Chouard and of Cardinal Richelieu.
1. lr: the first draft of Fichet’s letter of transmission to Chouard, fragmentary, *243] PIACENZA, Biblioteca Comunale Passerini-Landi, MS Landi 50. Cart.,
autograph, t. 2r-v: Chouard’s letter of acknowledgment to Fichet, autograph misc., s. XV 2/2. Belonged to Antonio Morali Serafico and perhaps partly writ­
[Text 17], ff. 3v-4v: final draft of Fichet’s letter to Chouard, in the hand of the ten by him.
copyist [Text 16]. 11. 5r-83r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, hand
of copyist. ff. lr-47v: Grg., tr. Bruni, with argument.
BEC 31: 151; J. Philippe, Guillaume Fichet, sa vie, ses oeuvres (Annecy, 1892), pp. A. Balsamo, Cat. dei MSS della Bibl. Com. di Piacenza (Piacenza, 1910), p. 28, no.
171-172; Kristeller, Melanges Tisserant VI (ST 236), p. 464n.; Iter 3: 264. 31; Bertalot 2: 268; Suppl. 1: XXIX; Iter 2: 71D.

*2 3 8 ]----- , lat. 18590. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 138 leaves. Decorated initials. 244] PRAGUE, Metropolitm Kapitoli Prazske L 64 (1309). Cart., s. XV, 146
From the discalced Friars of St. Augustine, Paris. leaves. Written at the University of Bologna in 1459 by Wenceslaus de
Krizanow, professor of theology.
ff. 74r-113r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
ff. 54r-72r: Phd., tr. Bruni, without preface, ff. 76r-83r: Ap., tr. Bruni, second
BEC 31: 564; Iter 3: 270. version, with argument, ff. 73r-74v: Grg., excerpt only, tr. Bruni.
A. Podlaha, Soupis Rukopisu kmhovny Metropolitni Kapitoly Prazske, 4 (Prague,
*239]----- , nouv. acq. lat. 1633. Cart., misc., ss. XV-XVI. Autograph drafts, 1922), pp. 237-238, no. 1309; Bertalot 2: 271; E. Jeauneau, Mediaeval Studies 41
with corrections, datable to 1464. The second half of no. 242. The argumenta (1979): 172-175.
in no. 208 are copied from this MS.
ff. 5r-7r: Ficino, argumenta to his translations of Ale. 2, Min., Euthphr., Prm., 245] PRAGUE, Statnl knihovna Ceske Socialisticke Republiky IV B 24 (626).
Phlb. Cart., s. XV med., 98 leaves. Copied in Central Europe (Bohemia?),
marginalia (ss. XV-XVI). Owned by Matthias de Pelhrimov.
L. Delisle, Cat. des mss. desfonds Ltbn et Barrois (Paris, 1888), pp. 115-116; Suppl.
1: XXXVIII; Kristeller (1956), p. 162; Kristeller, Studi ... Tammaro De Marinis ff. 18v-26v: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 27r-37r: Ap., tr.
3: 30; Kristeller (1966), passim; Iter 3: 290; Mostra, p. 114. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 37r-42v: Cn., tr. Bruni, second ver­
sion, with argument, ff. 42v-73v: Grg., tr. Bruni. ff. 73v-96r: Ep., tr. Bruni,
+ 240] PARMA, Biblioteca Palatina Pal. 92. Mbr., s. XV 1/2, unnumbered
with preface and argument.
leaves. Humanistic bookhand, initials decorated in Tuscan style.
J. Truhlar, Cat. codd. MSS lat. qui in C. R. Bibl. Publica atque Umv. Pragensi asserv.
Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and letter to Niccoli (Mehus 1.8).
(1905), 1: 252; Bertalot 2: 268, 270; Jeauneau, Mediaeval Studies 41 (1979):
Iter 2: 34D. 172-175; Berti, p. 186.
714 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 715

2 4 6 ] -----, Lobkovicz VI E f 11. Cart., s. XV ex., 406 leaves. Written in Suppl. 1: XLV; Iter 2: 100D.
Florence probably ca. 1493; bought by Lobkovicz (d. 1510) in Milan; arms of
Bohuslaus Hassenstein a Lobkovicz. *252] ROME, Biblioteca Corsiniana 36 F 16 (Niccolo Rossi 78). Cart., misc.,
ff. 290r-299r: Dej., tr. Ficino, with preface to Cavalcanti (ff. 229r-232r). ff. s. XVI in. Owned by Bernardo Rucellai. Dated to Naples, 1501.
309r-402r: Argumentum in 11 chapters and commentum cum summis ff. 37r-40r: Ax., tr. Ficino, with preface to Piero de’Medici.
capitulorum to Ficino’s Phdr. version.
Cat. selectiss. bibl. Nicolai Rossi (Rome, 1786), p. 9; Suppl. 1: XLVI; Kristeller
E. Gollob, SB der K. Akad der Wissensch. in Wien, Phil.-hist. Kl. 146 (1903), p. (1956), p. 184n.; Iter 2: 113D ; S. Monti in Rend. dell’Accad. di archeol. lett. e belle
136, no. 7; CTC 3: 79; M. Sicherl, IMU 20 (1977): 336-337; Jeauneau, ’pp' arti di Napoli 44 (1969): 243-258; A. Petrucci, Cat. sommario dei MSS del Fondo
175-177; Allen (1981b), pp. 253-255; Iter 3: 165; Mostra, pp. 152, 156, 161, Rossi (Rome, 1977), p. 39, no. 78.

247] RAVENNA, Casa Cavalli s. n. Cart., misc., s. XV, 93 leaves. Written * 2 5 3 ]------, 43 E 43 (Niccolo Rossi 191). Cart., misc., s. XV, 80 leaves.
by Lorenzo Guidetti (communication of Arthur Field). Humanistic script, two hands; text ending on f. 57r written in August 1459.
Designs in the hand of Giovanni di Niccolo Castaldi.
ff. 3r-9v: Dej., tr. Ficino.
ff. 25r-33v: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Giordano Orsini.
A. Field, Rinascimento, ser. 2, 21 (1981), p. 236; Iter 8548D ts.
Catalogus (1786), p. 20; Garin (1955), p. 369; Iter 2: 113-114D; B. Degenhart
+ 248] REIMS, Bibliotheque Municipale 862. Mbr., misc., s. XV 1/4, 163 and A. Schmitt, Corpus der italiemschen Zeichnungen 1 (1968), nos. 488-489; Petruc­
leaves. French semigothic script. Copied in 1416 at the Council of Constance ci, Cat. sommario, pp. 90-91.
for Card. Guillaume Fillastre, and donated by him to the cathedral chapter of
Reims. *254]------, 43 D 21 (Niccolo Rossi 304). Cart., misc., s. XV, 60 leaves. Writ­
ten in Aquila by Bernardus Manni de Civitargli, dated (f. 27v) 20 June 1481.
ff. 19r-48r: Grg., tr. Bruni, with argument, ff. 51r-v: letter of transmission of Owned (s. XVIII) by Franciscus Antonius Caesura.
Fillastre to the Reims chapter [Text 3]. ff. 51v-79v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface
and letter to Niccoli [Mehus 1.8]. ff. 21r-27v: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Giordano Orsini.
Cat. gen. 39: 170-172; P. Lehmann, Zeitschr. des deutschen Vereins f. Buchwesen u. Catalogus (1786), p. 31; Iter 2: 116D; Petrucci, Cat. sommario, p. 148.
Schrifttum 4 (1921): 20; Bertalot 2: 268, 395; Samaran and Marichal, Catalogue
des MSS, 5: 289; Iter 3: 34ID. *255] ROME, Biblioteca Vallicelliana C 87. Mbr., s. XV 2/4 (alter 1428), 47
leaves. Semigothic script; probably written by a scribe employed by Filelfo; ap­
*249] RIMINI, Biblioteca Civica Gambalunga 4 A II 25 (olim C S 31). Mbr., parently authorial corrections. Water damage at the end.
misc., s. XV med. Several humanistic and semihumanistic hands; probably ff 35r-47r: Euthphr., tr. Filelfo, with dedicatory epistle.
written in Rome or with the papal court.
Garin (1955), p. 370; Iter 2: 131-132D; above, pp. 402, 406.
ff. 99r-104v: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Giordano Orsini.
Mazzatinti 2: 157-158, no. 154; Bertalot 2: 134; Iter 2: 88D. *256] ROSTOCK, Universitaetsbibliothek Philol. 20. Cart, and mbr., s. XV-.
Relevant part written in Germany in 1454; decorated initials and notabilia.
*250] ROME, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Vittorio Emmanuele 1041. ff. 89r-99r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 100r-112r: Ap., tr.
Cart., s. XV, 72 leaves. Two humanistic hands, notabilia. From the Capilupi Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 112v-119r: Cri., tr. Bruni, second ver­
of Mantua. sion, with argument, ff. 119v-147v: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument,
ff. 51r-72r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. ff. 147v-189v: Grg., tr. Bruni.

G. Andres, Cat. dei codd. MSS della jamiglia Capilupi in Mantova (Mantua, 1797), Iter 3: 43ID.
pp. 82-87, no. 28; T. Gasparrini Leporaci, I MSS Capilupiani della Bibl. Naz.
Centr. di Roma (Rome, 1939), p. 90; Iter 8622 ts. 257] SAINT-MIHIEL, Bibliotheque Municipale 45. Cart., s. XV, un­
numbered leaves. French hand. f. lr: “ Liber fratris Ludovici Portier, monachi
s. Michaelis de Sancto Michaele in Barro, quern scripsit ipse in tempore
*251] ROME, Biblioteca Casanatense 1193 (E V 51). Cart., misc., s. XV 4/4.
The colophon on 1. 28v: “ Anno MCCCCLXV sedente Pio papa secundo” (d. quadrigesimae anno Domini MCCCCXXXVIII [n.s. 1439].’’
1464) is authorial rather than scribal. Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Giordano Orsini.
If. 9r-28v: Ax., tr. Ficino, with preface to Piero de’Medici. Cat. gen. 3: 529; Bertalot 2: 134.
716 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 717

*258] SALAMANCA, Biblioteca Universitaria 66. Cart., s. XV, 219 leaves. Mazzatinti 3: 115; Bertalot 2: 270; Iter 2: 566D; Mostra di codd. umamstici delle
Written by a scribe employed by Pier Candido Decembrio for Alonso Garcia biblioteche friulane (Florence, 1978), p. 46; Berti, p. 187; L. Casarsa et al., Cat.
of Cartagena. Bp. of Burgos. di MSS filosofici nelle bibl. ital. , 5 (Florence, 1985): 147-154; on Jeremias de Si­
Rep., tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with prefaces, argumentula et capita librorum. meonibus, see Tiraboschi, Stona della lett. ital. (1812), 2.2: 476.
Brevis annotatio, and letters of transmission of Decembrio, Francesco Pizolpasso
and Duke Humfrey of Gloucester. *264]----- , 101. Mbr., misc., s. XV' 2/2, 123 leaves. Humanistic bookhand,
probably Florentine.
Cat. de los libros MSS que se conservan en la Bibl. de la Umv. de Salamanca (Madrid,
1855), p. 20; Weiss, p. 57, note 4; Zaccaria (1959), pp. 180, 193; Sam m ut, p. ff. 109r-122r: Cri., tr. Bruni, second version, with argument.
140; Iter 4:604; above, p. 414. Mazzatinti 3: 126; Bertalot 2: 270; Iter 2: 567D; Mostra di codd. umanistici. pp.
33, 34, 66; Berti, p. 186.
*259]----- . 2265. Cart., misc., s. XV, 66 leaves. Several hands, including that
of Antonius de Lebrixa (signed f. 24v); notabilia. Formerly Palacio 2007 (2 N * 2 6 5 ]----- , 102. Mbr., misc., s. XV med. (inter 1444-1461). Humanistic
3 = VII 5 2). From S. Bartolomeo, Madrid. bookhand, Venetian decoration.
ff. lr-9v; Ax. , tr. Cencio de’Rustici. with prefaces to Velleius and Giordano Or- ff. 2r-46v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and letter to Niccoli (Mehus 1.8).
sini. if. 10r-24v: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. If. 25r-77v: Phd., Mazzatinti 3: 126; Iter 2: 567D; Mostra di codd. umanistici, pp. 40, 71, 75.
tr. Bruni, with preface and letter to Niccoli (Mehus 1.8). ff. 78r-132v: Grg. , tr.
Bruni. 266] SANKT PAUL IM LAVANTTHAL. Stiftsbibliothek 79/4 (olim XXVIII
Bertalot 2: 268; Iter 4:606. b 79 = 24 4 9). Cart., misc., s. XV, 295 leaves. German and Italian hands.
f. 45r: Phd., tr. Bruni, preface only.
260] SALZBURG. Universitaetsbibliothek M I 265. Cart., misc., s. XV 3/4. Iter 3: 45-46D.
Italian hand. Formerly Studienbibliothek V 2 Jb 205.
ff. 109r-117r: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Giordano Orsini. *267] SEVILLE, Biblioteca Colombina v Capitular 5-2-50. Mbr., misc., s. XV
3/4, 89 leaves. Humanistic cursive bookhand, written in Florence. From Fer­
Fachgruppen-katalog der Hss. -Sammlung der Oeffent. Studienbibl. (typed inventory), p. nando Colon, son of the explorer.
70; Bertalot 2: 134; Iter 3: 42-43D.
ff. 39r-61r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
2 6 1 ] -----, M I 473-475 (W I 50), fasc. 3. Cart., s. XV ex. German hand. Iter 4:614.
ff. lr-44r: Ep. , tr. Bruni.
*268]----- , 5-5-19. Cart., misc., s. XV 3/4. Various humanistic and semigothic
Iter 3: 43D. hands, one of which belongs to ‘‘Johannes Andreae” ; texts ending on if. 69r
and 84r dated August, 1467. Perhaps Sienese origin. Scholar’s copy.
*262] SAN DANIELE DEL FRIULI, Biblioteca Civica Guarneriana 28. Cart., f. 92r: Ep. IX, tr. Bruni.
misc.,- s. XV, leaves numbered irregularly. Several humanistic and semi-
humanistic hands. Owned by Guarnerio d’Artegna Iter 4:617.

ff. 137v-140v: Lg. , tr. George ofTrebizond: preface to Francesco Barbaro only. *269]----- , 5-6-21 (olim Z 137-25). Mbr., s. XV' 1/2, 73 leaves. Semigothic
Mazzatinti 3: 112; Iter 2: 565-566D; C. Griggio, Lettere itahane 31 (1979): bookhand, notabilia. Coat of arms of a cardinal. From Fernando Colon. One
216-217; C. Griggio, in Cultura, religione e politica nell’eta di A. M. Querim, ed. G. gathering before f. 40 missing.
Benzoni and M. Pegrari (Brescia, 1982), p. 379; Besomi and Regoliosi, Valle Rep. , tr. Chrysoloras and Uberto Decembrio, fragmentary in the middle (miss­
epistole, p. 60; Trapezuntiana, p. 50. ing Book VI and part of Book V), without prologue and poem, but with col­
ophon identifying the translators.
* 2 6 3 ]----- , 43. Cart., m isc., s. XV, leaves numbered irregularly. Various Haenel, p. 981; Iter 4:620; above, pp. 412-13.
humanistic cursive, semibastarda and semigothic scripts. Compiled by Jerenuas
de Simeonibus, doctor of arts and medicine, 1446-1456; partly written by Ins *270] SIENA, Biblioteca Comunale H V 41. Mbr., misc., s. XV med., 100
scribe Niccolini. leaves. Semigothic bookhand, double columns.
If. 128r-133r: Cri. , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument. ff. 54r-78r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.
718 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 719

276] ---- , Cod. Theol. et philos. Fol. 58. Written in Padua in 1470 by Baptista
N. Terzaghi, Studi ital. difilol. class. 11 (1903): 427; B. L. Ullman, in Studi in Augustensis.
onore di Luigi Castiglione {Florence. 1960), pp. 1027-1057; /ter 2:164D; D. F. S.
Thomson, Catullus: A Critical Edition (Chapel Hill, NC, 1978), pp. 56-67. ff. 41r-51r: Grg., tr. Bruni. ff. 51v-74r: Phd., tr. Bruni. ff. 95r-100r: Cn., tr.
Bruni, First version.
*271]----- , J IX 2. Cart., misc., s. XV 3/4, 93 leaves. Several humanistic cur­ Bertalot 2: 268; Iter 3: 701; Berti, p. 152.
sive bookhands. Probablv from a Piccolomini collection. Arms of Alexander
VIII.
277] STUTTGART, Private collection of Baurat Kvriss. Owner’s note on fly­
ff. 40r-55r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. leaf: “ Mei Karoli Reguardati Nursini Militis 1464” . Lost after the Second
World War.
L. Ilari. La biblioteca pubblica di Siena 1 (Siena, 1844), p. 153; 2 (1848), pp. 12-13;
Iter 2: 167D. ff. 30v-45r: Cn., tr. Bruni, second version.
Bertalot 2: 270; another MS owned by Reguardatus is in London, BL Burney
*272] K VI 68. Cart., misc., s. XV, 171 leaves. Scribal colophon, f. 104r: 172.
“ Novus Cicero explicit feiiciter MCCCCXLIIII.
ff. 143r-158r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. 278] SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, Notre Dame University Library 30. Cart.,
Iter 2: 157E. misc., s. XV, 201 leaves. Written by Joseph Czelfkendorf in Krakow (?).
Owned by Johannes Andreae de Nvssa, canon of Wroclaw (d. ca. 1484) and
Martinus Leheure (P).
273] STOCKHOLM, Kungliga Biblioteket Va 2. Cart., misc., s. XV, 496
leaves. Written in Bohemia (probably Prague). ff. 134v-135r: Ep., tr. Bruni, preface only.
ff. 450r-454v: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 454v-460v: Ap., J. A. Corbett, Cat. of the Med. and Ren. MSS of the Umv. of Notre Dame (South
tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 460v-463v: C n., tr. Bruni, second Bend, 1978), pp. 137-157; Iter 7297D ts.
version, with argument, ff. 463v-484r: Grg , tr. Bruni. ff. 484r-496v: Ep., tr.
Bruni, with preface and argument. 279] TRIER, Stadtbibliothek 1080 (2036). Cart., misc., s. XV, 230 leaves.
I. Vossius, Catalogus Bibliothecae Christianae (1650), ed. C. Callmer (Stockholm, Partly printed (Cicero, Ep. jam. [Milan, 1478]), marginalia. Text ending on f.
1971), p. 22; K. Burdach, Festschrift Eugen Megk (Halle, 1924), pp. 259n.-260n.; 192v written by Johannes Beham or Behaim of Nuernberg.
E. Pellegrin, Bull, d ’information de I'IRHT 3 (1954): 10; Lacombe, Aristoteles ff. 196r-226r: Grg., tr. Bruni, with argument.
Latinus, Codices. 2: 1149; Iter 6072 ts.
G. Kentenich, Die philologischen Hss. der SB zu Trier (Trier, 1931), pp. 3-4; Ber­
talot 2: 268; Iter 3: 719; Trapezuntiana, p. 53.
274] STUTTGART, Wuerttembergische Landesbibliothek Cod. Poet, et
philol. Q. 36. Mbr., misc., s. XV 4/4, 359 leaves. Humanistic script, written
in Worms by Johannes Pfeutzer and Johann von Plieningen. Arms of Dietrich 280] TRIESTE, Biblioteca della Fondazione Giovanni Scaramanza di
von Plieningen and of Oswald and Anna von Eck (1545); passed from von Eck Altomonte E 32 (2618). Misc., s. XV. Copied by Johannes Theatinus in 1428.
to the Komburger Bibliothek. ff. 1r-51r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and letter to Niccoli.
ff. 284r-297r: Ax., tr. Agricola, with preface to Langius. S. Cavazza, Quaderni Giuliani di storia 1 (1980): 69-70; Iter 8745E ts.
A. Sottili, I codd. del Petrarca nella Germania occidentale, 2 (1978), pp. 358-364; W.
Irtenkauf and I. Krekler, Die Hss. d. Wuerttemb. LB Stuttgart, 1.2: Codd. Poet, et *281] TURIN, Biblioteca Civica, Fondo Bosio B 186. Mbr., s. XV 4/4, 160
philol. (Wiesbaden, 1981), pp. 102-104; Iter 3: 707D. leaves. Humanistic cursive bookhand, Ferrarese decoration. Written by ‘‘Nisus
Eurialus” (a pseudonym: cf. Aen. V.315f.) Owned by Ottaviano Eleno Camerti
275] ---- , Cod. Poet, et philol. Q 38. Written at Ferrara in 1478 by Dietrich (s. XVII) and Jacopo Antonio Bosio (s. XIX). f. 160v: ‘‘Finit foeliciter Nisus
von Plieningen; probably the author’s exemplar. Later owned by Oswald von Eurialus.”
Eck and the Komburger Bibliothek.
ff. lr-49v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, fragmentary at the beginning, ff.
tf. lv-8v: Ax., tr. Agricola, with preface to Rudolphus Langius. 50r-68v: Ap., tr. Bruni, second version, fragmentary at the end. ff. 69r-126r:
Grg., tr. Bruni, fragmentary at the beginning.
E. H. Waterbolk, Humamstica Lovanien.sia 21 (1972): 37-49; Irtenkauf and
Krekler, Die Hss., p. 106; Iter 3: 708. Communication of Prof. Ernesto Berti.
720 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 721

*282] TURIN, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria E III 30. Mbr., s. XV rned.. Mazzatinti 3: 237; Lockwood, p. 60; Iter 2: .203E, 574D; Mostra di codici
184 leaves. Round humanistic bookhand, Lombard decoration. Corrections and urnanistici delle bibl. fnulane, p. 57, no. 61; Berti, pp. 113-114; above, p. 86.
marginalia in the hand of Pier Candido Decembrio. Arms of Cardinal
Domenico della Rovere. 288] UDINE, Biblioteca Arcivescovile 49 (Qt 36 II 14). Mbr. and cart., misc.,
Rep., tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with prefaces, argumentula et capita librorum. ss. XII and XV, 142 leaves. Relevant leaves written in a humanistic bookhand.
Brevis annotatio, and letters of transmission of Decembrio, Francesco Pizolpasso ff. 65r-66r: Phd., tr. Bruni, preface only.
and Duke Humfrey.
Mazzatinti 3: 230; Iter 2: 201E; Mostra di codd. urnanistici, pp. 118-120; C.
Pasinus, Codd. MSS Bibl. Reg. Taurinen. Athenaei (Turin, 1749), no. 451; E. Scalon, La bibl. arcivesc. di Udine {Padua, 1979), pp. 118-119.
Stampini et ah, Riv. di Filol. 32 (1904): 454; Mazzatinti 28: 71, no. 687; Garin
(1955) , p. 348, note 11; Zaccaria (1959), p. 180; Sammut, p. 139; above, p.
413. 2 8 9 ] ----- , 70 (F 11 II 36). Cart., misc., s. XV, 63 leaves. Humanistic
bookhand, assembled in Padua.
*283]----- , E VI 10. Mbr., s. XV, 98 leaves. Owned by Bernardo Bembo and f. 44r-v: Phd. , tr. Bruni. preface only.
written by him at Padua on 15 February 1454 [1455], Bembo’s coat of arms,
Venetian decoration. Damaged in the fire of 1904. Mazzatinti 3: 226; Bertalot 2: 209-235; Iter 2: 202D; Mostra di codd. urnanistici.
p. 56; Scalon, La bibl.. p. 135.
ff. 3v-98r: Phd., tr. Bruni with preface and letter to Niccoli (Mehus 1.8).
Pasinus, no. 1171; Stampini, p. 506; C. Frati, in Race, di studi cntici ded. ad 290] UPPSALA, Universitetsbiblioteket C 927. Cart., misc., s. XV, 213 leaves.
Alessandro D ’Ancona (Florence, 1901), pp. 93-94, note 7; Bertalot 2: 396; Maz­ Several hands.
zatinti 28: 82, no. 797; above, p. 367f.
ff. 192v-197v: Ax., tr. Agricola, with preface to Rodolphus Langius.
*284]----- , G II 36. Cart., misc., s. XV, 198 leaves. Autograph, with correc­ E. Pellegrin, Bull, d ’mjormation IRHT 4 (1955): 23-24; M. Andersson-Schmitt,
tions. From Cardinal Grimani. Damaged by water. MSS medievalia Upsaliensia (Uppsala, 1970), p. 32, nos. 512 and 515; p. 51, no.
ff. 30r-30v: Autograph notes of George of Trebizond criticizing Plato’s Lg. ff. 840; Iter 6202D ts.
32r-33r: Lg., tr. George of Trebizond: preface to Nicolas V only.
291] UTRECHT, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit 1 E 26. Cart., misc., s. XV
Pasinus, 2: 98, no. 404; Stampini, p. 539; Mazzatinti 28: 103, no. 996; Mon- ex., 121 leaves. Franco-Flemish bastarda bookhand.
fasani, George oj Trebizond, pp. 17n., 108n., 118n., 346n., 360-364; Trapezun-
tiana, p. 53; Iter 8725D ts; above, p. 180. ff. 88r-120v: Grg., tr. Bruni, with argument.
Cat. codd. MSS Bibl. Univ. Rheno-Trajectinae 1 (1887), p. 207, no. 809; Iter 4537D
*285]----- , J III 13. Mbr., misc., s. XVI in., 504 leaves. Badly damaged in
ts.
fire of 1904.
ff. 368r-370v: Def., tr. Ficino. ff. 371r-374v: Ax., tr. Ficino, with preface to *292] VATICAN CITY, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Arch. s. Petri H 46.
Piero de’Medici. Mbr., misc., s. XV 1/2, 152 leaves. Three humanistic and semihumanistic
Pasinus, no. 603; Mazzatinti 28: 143, no. 1397; Suppl. 1: XLVIII-IL; Kristeller hands. Arms of Cardinal Giordano Orsini (d. 1438).
(1956) , p. 163; Iter 2: 181-182D. ff. 135r-144v: Cri., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Gabriel Condulmer.
* 2 8 6 ]----- , K VI 17. Mbr., s. XV 4/4, 60 leaves. Humanistic bookhand, G. Mercati, Codici latim Pico Grimani Pio, ST 75 (Vatican City, 1938), pp. 148,
Northern Italian illumination; supposedly had autograph corrections. Badly 158; Iter 2: 49IE; E. Pellegrin, IMU 18 (1975): 75-76; E. Berti, Studi classici e
damaged in fire of 1904. onentali 33 (1983): 120.
ff. lr-14v: Def., tr. Ficino, with preface to Cavalcanti.
*293]----- , Arch. s. Petri H 52. Mbr., s. XV 1/2, 81 leaves. From Cardinal
Pasinus, no. 1173; Suppl. 1: IL; G. Vinay, Aevum 21 (1947): 224; Iter 2: 182D, Giordano Orsini. Early humanistic script.
573E.
ff. lr-42r: Grg., tr. Bruni. ff. 43r-73r: Phd., tr. Bruni, fragmentary at the end.
287] UDINE, Biblioteca Capitolare, Bini 21, fasc. 4. Mbr., s. XV med., 19 ff. 75r-82r: Cri., tr. Bruni, first version.
leaves. Humanistic bookhand. F. Cancellieri, De secretarus Basihcae Vat. vetens ac novae (Rome, 1786), 2: 908;
ff. lr-8v: Ax., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Angelotto Fosco. It. 9r-l9r: Bertalot 2: 268; Iter 2: 491 E; E. Berti, Mus. Helueticum 35 (1978): 135-148; Berti,
Cri., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Manuel Paleologus (redactio maior). p. 151.
722 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 723

*294]----- , Barb. lat. 17. Mbr., s. XV med., 38 leaves. A presentation copy, *3 0 1 ]------, Ottob. lat. 1616. Mbr., s. XV, 62 unnumbered leaves. Coat of
written by Giovanni Marco Cinico. arms of Card. Marcello Cervini. From the Duke of Altemps.
If. lr-29r: Ax., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Nicolaus V [Text 27], ff. lr-60r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Lockwood, p. 103; De Marinis, La bibl. napoletana, 1: 13, no. 13; Iter 2: 442E; T. De Marinis, La legatura artistica, 1: 102, no. 1026; Iter 2: 418E, 601E; F.
S. Prete, Codices Barb. lat. (Vatican City, 1968), pp. 25-26. Fossier, Melanges de VEcole fran(. de Rome 91 (1979): 449.

*295]----- , Barb. lat. 344. Cart., s. XVI, 171 leaves. *302]------, Ottob. lat. 2033. Mbr., s. XV, 53 leaves. Humanistic script; Italian
provenance. Owned by Card. Marcello Cervini, Card. Guglielmo Sirleto, and
Ale. 2, tr. Giovanni Battista Camozzi, with introduction and running commen­ the Duke of Altemps.
tary, the whole entitled In Alcibiadem Platoms maiorem ... commentariorum liber
primus [-tertius], dedicated to Card. Filippo Boncompagni. ff. 34r-51v: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Iter 2: 459D. F. De Marco, Aevum 31 (1957): 537-539; Iter 2: 420E; E. Pellegrin et al., MSS
classiques latins de la Bibl. Vat. 1 (Paris, 1975), p. 758; Fossier (cit. no. 301), pp.
433, 450.
*296]----- , Barb. lat. 1873. Cart., misc., s. XV, 215 leaves. Fly-leaf: “ Liber
Bartolomei Ghisilardi Bononiensis. *303]------, Ottob. lat. 2050. Cart., s. XV 1/4, 115 leaves. From the Duke of
ff. 177r-215r: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. Altemps.
Bruni. Schnften, p. 232; Iter 2: 448E. Rep. , tr. Chrysoloras and Uberto Decembrio, with poem and prologue; Book
X fragmentary at the end.
*297]----- , Boncompagni K 27. Cart., s. XVI, 113 leaves. See no. 295. Iter 2: 435D; above, p. 412.
Ale. 2, tr. Giovanni Battista Camozzi, fragmentary at the end, contained in
Camozzi’s In Alcibiadem Platoms maiorem ... commentariorum liber secundus (only). * 3 0 4 ]------, Ottob. lat. 2141. Cart., s. XV, 207 leaves. From the Duke of
Altemps.
Iter 9208D ts.
ff. lr-59r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 61r-123v: Grg., tr. Bruni. ff.
123v-145r: A p . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 145v-189v: Ep.,
*298]----- , Capponi 182. Mbr., s. XV 2/2, 54 leaves. Coat of arms. tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
ff. lr-52r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface. Bertalot 2: 268, 270, 385; Iter 2: 421E.
S. Cozzo, I codd. Capponiani della Bibl. Vat. (Rome, 1897), p. 254.
*305]------, Pal. lat. 974. Cart., s. XV, 59 leaves. From the library of Gianozzo
Manetti; owned by Johann Fugger.
* 2 9 9 ]----- , Chis. J VI 214. Cart., misc., s. XV, 184 leaves. Owned by
Leonardo Marchio Malaspina, with marginal notes in his hand and in that of ff. lr-26v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and letter to Niccoli (Mehus 1.8). ff.
Cesare Baronio. Scribal colophon, f. 184r: “ Explicit Deo gratias amen 26v-54r: Grg., tr. Bruni, with argument.
M CCCCXXX.” Beneath, in another hand: “ Isti libri ... constiterunt mihi P. Lehmann, Fuggerbibliotheken, 2: 122, 498; Bertalot 2: 396; Iter 2: 392E, 589E;
Leonardo Marchioni M alasp<inae> sub anno Domini 1430 libr. impe- E. Berti, Mus. Helv. 35 (1978): 135-148.
r< i> aliu m 4, < s o l.> 8 , < d e n .> 2 .’’
ff. lr-29r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 30r-35v: Cri., tr. Bruni, first version, *306]------, Pal. lat. 1599. Cart., s. XV, 84 leaves. Scribal colophon, f. 83v:
ff. 36r-48r: A p . , tr. Bruni, first version, ff. 49r-83r: Grg., tr. Bruni. “ Finit ex Maguntia anno MCCCCXLVIH’’. Fly-leaf, owner’s notes: “ An­
dreas” ; “ R. Loher Sani.”
Bruni, Schriften, p. 172 (which incorrectly gives the date as 1428); Bertalot 2:
268, 270; Iter 2: 484D; above, pp. 51, 379. ff. lr-37r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 54r-65v: Phdr., tr.
Bruni, with preface and argument.
*300]----- , Chis. L V 165. M br., s. XV med., 96 leaves. Coat of arms of Inigo Iter 2: 349E.
Davalos, conte camerlengo of the Kings of Naples (d. 1484).
If. 83r-90r: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Giordano Orsini. *307]------, Pal. lat. 1769. Cart., misc., s. XV med., 257 leaves. Several gothic
cursive German hands, including that of Hermann Haubauth. Owned by Mat­
Iter 2: 488D;J. Fohlen^a/., Revue d ’histoire des textes 1 (1971): 198; above, p. 473. thias Widman de Kemnat (d. 1476). Scholar’s copy, with notabilia.
724 P A R T III
C A TA LO G S 725

ff. 141r-177v: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 177v-190r: Phdr. * 3 1 3 ]----- , Reg. lat. 1832. Cart., misc., s. ‘XV (after 1466), 146 leaves.
tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. Humanistic cursive, North Italian.
Iter 2: 395E; M. Steinmann, Archiv fuer Diplomatik 22 (1976): 406; E. Pellegrin ff. 7v-9r: Ep. IX, X I only, tr. Bruni.
IM U 19 (1976): 494-495; C. Jeudy, Revue d ’histoire de la spintualite 53 (1977):
240-244; E. Pellegrin et al., MSS classiques latins de la Bibl. Vat. 2.2 (Paris, 1982) Bruni, Schnften, p. 232; Iter 2: 410D; C. Jeudy, Viator 5 (1974): 74; E. Pellegrin
pp. 407-409. et ah, MSS classiques latins, 2.2: 440-443.

* 3 1 4 ]----- , Ross. 377. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 49 leaves. Written by the

*308]----- , Patetta 339. Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2, 110 leaves. Probably written Dominican preacher Leonardo da Udine in 1458.
by Victorius Giovardus Verulanus, a student of Giovanni Antonio Campano.
ff. 32r-37r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
ff. 71r-87v: Ax. , tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Angelotto Fosco. ff.
88r-106v: Cri., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Gabriele Condulmer. Iter 2: 469D; P. Hemeryck, Melanges de I’Ecole/rang, de Rome 84 (1972), passim;
L. Cesarini Martinelli, Rinascimento, ser. 2, 17 (1977): 1 17-234.
Iter 9178D ts; E. Berti, Studi classici e onentah 33 (1983): 120; above, p. 8 6 n.

*315]----- , Ross. 1024. Cart., misc., s. XV, 265 leaves. Written by Dominicus
*309]----- , Reg. lat. 1131. Mbr., s. XV 1/4, 45 leaves, double columns. North Flastrensis and “ H .G .” in 1472/73, and corrected by Pomponio Leto at the
Italian gothic bookhand, marginalia in several hands, one of which belongs to house of “ Bishop M .’’ Notabilia.
Guarino Veronese (communication of A. C. de la Mare).
ff. 96r-101r: Ax., tr. Cencio de’Rustici.
Rep., tr. Chrysoloras and Uberto Decembrio, with poem and prologue.
Iter 2: 471D; E. H. Alton, Bull. Inst. Class. Stud., London 24 (1977): 58; E.
Montfaucon, Bibliotheca bibhothecarum nova (Paris, 1739), 1 : 55, no. 1874; Resta Pellegrin et al, XISS classiques latins, 2.2: 501-502.
(1959), p. 255; Iter 2: 407D; Hankins (1987b), passim; above, pp. 140, 412, 424.
*316]----- , Urb. lat. 185. Mbr., s. XV 4/4, 243 leaves. Written for Federigo,
*310]----- , Reg. lat. 1321. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 194 leaves. Written in 1434 Duke of Urbino; decorated border.
by Ubertino da Parma from a collection made by Ugolino de Cantelis da Parma ff. lr-2v: Ficino, preface to Lorenzo de’Medici. ff. 3r-6r: Ficino, Vita Platoms.
for Zenone Castiglione, bp. of Bayeaux. Later in the Benedictine abbey of St. ff. 7r-10v: Hipparch., tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 10v-14r: Amat., tr. Ficino,
Etienne in Caen. with argument, ff. 14r-19v: Thg., tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 19v-33v: Xlen.,
ff. lr-8 v: C n . , tr. Brunt, first version, ff. 8v-25r: A p. , tr. Bruni, first version, tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 33v-48v: Ale. 1, tr. Ficino, with argument, ff.
ff. 25r-67v: Grg., tr. Bruni, with the title, “ Liber sive disputatio cum Gorgia 48v-54v: Ale. 2, tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 55r-59r: Min., tr. Ficino, with
invehens contra oratores sive artem dicendi.’’ ff. 182r-193r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, argument, ff. 59v-66v: Euthphr., tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 6 6 v-8 8 r: Prm.,
with preface and argument. tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 88r-113r: Phlb., tr. Ficino, with argument. If.
113r-126v: Hp. ma., tr. Ficino, with argument, ff. 126v-137v: L y. , tr. Ficino,
Montfaucon, Bibliotheca, 1: 23, no. 428; Bertalot 2: 415-417; Garin (1955), p. with argument, ff. I37v-178v: Tht. , with epitome, ff. 179r-186v: Ion, tr. Ficino,
363; T. Foffano, Rinascimento, ser. 2, 4 (1964): 20-21; Iter 2: 402E; T. Foffano, with argument, ff. 188r-240v: Ficino, Comm, in Conv.
Quaderni per la stona dell’Univ. di Padova 2 (1969): 36, 40-41, and plate III.
Stornaiolo, Codd. Urb. lat. 1 (Rome, 1902), pp. 185-186; D ’Ancona, La
rniniatura, no. 1238; Suppl. 1: XLII-XLIII; J. A. Devereux, RQ 28 (1975):
*311]----- , Reg. lat. 1352. Cart., misc., s. XV (after 1454), 207 leaves. Two 173-182.
French gothic cursive hands. Scholar’s copy, owned by Robert Gaguin, with
marginalia in his hand. Later owned by Paul and Alexander Petau. *317]----- , Urb. lat. 228. Mbr., s. XV ex., 164 leaves. Richly illuminated,
ff. 190r-207v: Grg., tr. Bruni. arms of the Dukes of Urbino.
Montfaucon, Bibliotheca, 1: 52, no. 1646; Bertalot 2: 268; Iter 2: 407E, 597D; ff. 2r-154r: L g. , tr. George of Trebizond. ff. 154v-164r: Epin. , tr. George of
E. Pellegrin, Revue d ’histoire des textes 3 (1973): 292 and plate XXXVb; E. T rebizond.
Pellegrin et ah, MSS classiques latins, 2.2: 169-170. Stornaiolo, 1: 224; D ’Ancona, La rniniatura, 2: 617, no. 1265; Garin (1955), p.
372; Trapezuntiana, p. 58.
*312]----- , Reg. lat. 1808. Cart., misc., s. XV, 126 leaves.
*318]----- , Urb. lat. 1194. Mbr., misc., s. XV, 197 leaves. Richly illuminated,
11. lr-65v: Ep. I-XI only, tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. arms of the Dukes of Urbino. Written in 1471 by Federico Veterani.
Iter 2: 404 E. ff. 113r-128v: A x. , tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Angelotto Fosco.
726 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 727

Stornaiolo, 3: 203-204; Lockwood, p. 103; F. Della Corte, Suetomo grammatico B. Nogara, CVL 3: 413-415; Bruni, Schriften, p. 228.
e retore (Turin, 1968), p. XIX; C. H. Lohr, Traditio 27 (1971): 318; E. Pellegrin
et al., MSS classiques latins, 2.2: 667-669. *325]----- , Vat. lat. 2060. Mbr., s. XV, 264 leaves. Richly illuminated by An­
drea da Firenze for Pius II; written in 1463 by Iohannes Gobellini de Lyns in
*319]----- , Urb. lat. 1313. Mbr., s. XV, 147 leaves. Arms of the Dukes of Rome.
Urbino.
Rep. , tr. Cassarino, without Isagogicon.
ff. 2r-40r: Ep. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. Resta (1959), p. 270; Iter 2: 349D; J. Ruysschaert in Enea Silvio Piccolomini papa
Stornaiolo, 3: 260-261; Bruni, Schriften, p. 230; P. Kibre, Traditio 35 (1979)- Pio //(S ien a, 1968), pp. 255, 267, 281 and plate 2.
290.
*326]----- , Vat. lat. 2061. Mbr., s. XV, 186 leaves. Humanistic bookhand,
*320]----- , Urb. lat. 1314. Mbr., s. XV, 167 leaves. Arms of the Dukes of Ur­ decorated initials.
bino. Written in Florence by Gherardo del Ciriagio in 1472 for Vespasiano da Rep., tr. Cassarino, without Isagogicon.
Bisticci on commission for Federigo of Urbino.
Resta (1959), p. 271; Iter 2: 349D.
ff. 2r-54r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 54r-116r: Grg., tr. Bruni, with argu­
ment. ff. 117r-132v: Phdr., tr. Bruni. with preface and argument, ff. 133r-154r: *327]----- , Vat. lat. 2062. Mbr. and cart., s. XV med., 183 leaves. Finished
Ap., tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 154r-165r: Cri., tr. Bruni,
May 9, 1453, in the Capella s. Gregorii in old St. Peter’s, Rome. Written for
second version, with argument.
and corrected by Jean Jouffroy, Bp. of Arras. Annotations by Jouffroy and
Stornaiolo, 3: 261-262; Bruni, Schriften, p. 126; Bertalot 2: 268. Bessarion. Later owned by Pierre Bourdelot, royal secretary.
ff. lr-172v: L g. , tr. George of Trebizond. ff. 172v-183v: Epin. , tr. George of
*3 2 1 ]----- , Urb. lat. 1315. Cart., s. XVI ex.-XVII in., 318 leaves. First
Trebizond.
volume of a three-volume supplement to nos. 316, 317, 319 and 320, copied
from a printed edition. G. Mercati, Melanges Felix Grat (Paris, 1946), 1: 357-366; Iter 2: 349D; A.
Lancelloni, in Scnttura biblioteche e stampa a Roma nel ’400 (Vatican City, 1980),
ff. lr-70v: Smp., tr. Ficino. ff. 71r-91v: M x., tr. Ficino. ff. 92r-3l7r: Rep. I-VI, pp. 280, 284 note 48, 292; Trapezuntiana, p. 64; above, pp. 192, 429f., 470f.
tr. Ficino.
Stornaiolo, 3: 262; Suppl. 1: XLIII. *328]------, Vat. lat. 2064. Mbr., s. XV, 90 leaves. Humanistic script, Floren­
tine decoration, notabilia.
*322]----- , Urb. lat. 1316. Cart., s. XVI ex.-XVII in., 273 leaves. Second ff. lr-21v: A p . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 21v-32r: Cn., tr.
volume of a three-volume supplement to nos. 316, 317, 319 and 320, copied Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 32r-73v: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface
from a printed edition.
and argument, ff. 74r-89r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
ff. lr-135v: Rep. VIl-X, tr. Ficino. ff. 136r-239v: 77., tr. Ficino. ff. 240r-261v:
Bertalot 2: 270; Iter 2: 31 IE.
Cnti. , tr. Ficino. ff. 262r-273r: Ax., tr. Agricola.
Stornaiolo, 3: 262-263; Suppl. 1: XLIII. *329]----- , Vat. lat. 2065. Mbr., s. XV 2/2, 112 leaves. Sienese decoration.
Arms of Paul V and Scipione Borghese.
*323]----- , Urb. lat. 1317. Cart., s. XVI ex.-XVII in., 388 leaves. Third ff. lr-32r: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 32v-43v: Phdr., tr.
volume of a three-volume supplement to nos. 316, 317, 319 and 320, copied Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 44r-59v: A p . , tr. Bruni, second version,
from a printed edition.
with argument, ff. 60r-68r: Cri., tr. Bruni, with argument, ff. 6 8 v -lllv : Phd.,
ff. lr-55v: Sph., tr. Ficino. ff. 56r-117v: Pol., tr. Ficino. ff. 118r-179r: Prt., tr. tr. Bruni, with preface.
Ficino. ff. 180r-235v: Euthd., tr. Ficino. ff. 236r-243v: Hp. mi., tr. Ficino. ff.
C. Frati, Studi cntici ... D ’Ancona, p. 202n.; Iter 2: 311E; Berti, p. 186.
244r-274v: Chrm., tr. Ficino. ff. 275r-306r: La., tr. Ficino. ff. 307r-313r: Clit.,
tr. Ficino. ff. 314r-345r: Cra., tr. Ficino.
*330]------, Vat. lat. 2066. Cart., misc., s. XV, 148 leaves. Four parts, each
Stornaiolo, 3: 262-263; Suppl. 1: XLIII. in a different hand. Scribal colophon, f. 124v: “ Scripsit Melchior Ferrentini,
recognovit Lucius Ginagani.” Owner’s note (?), f. 71: “ B(artolomaeus)
*324]----- , Vat. lat. 2027. Cart., s. XV, 102 leaves. Several hands. Text end­ Baldana” .
ing on f. 38r written by Robertus Volaterranus in 1454.
ff. lr-27v (different hand from above): E p . , tr. Bruni, with preface and
ft. 80r-98v: Ep. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. argument.
728 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 729

Iter 2: 31 IE; P. Kibre, Traditio 35 (1979): 291. P. de Nolhac, La bibhotheque de Fulvio Orsini (Paris, 1887), pp. 220-221, 374, no.
207; Klibanskv (1943), p. 297; Iter 2: 318E; Trapezuntiana, p. 6 6 .
*331]----- , Vat. lat. 2910. Mbr., s. XV, 74 leaves. Scribal colophon, f. 73v:
‘‘Finis per me Nicolaum Comensem MCCCCLXIII” . *337]----- , Vat. lat. 3346. Cart., s. XV, 229 leaves. Owned by Antonio Panor­
ff. 41r-73v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface and letter to Niccoli (Mehus 1.8) at mita, with notes in his hand, and by Fulvio Orsini.
end. Rep., tr. Cassarino, with Isagogicon in Platoms vitam et doctrinam.
Bertalot 2: 396; Iter 2: 356D. Nolhac, Fulvio Orsini, p. 221; Garin (1955), p. 357; Resta (1959), pp. 257-258;
Iter 2: 360D; above, p. 423f.
*332]----- , Vat. lat. 2926. Cart., misc., s. XV, 224 leaves. Many hands, in­
cluding that of George ofTrebizond. Relevant portions autograph. Owned by * 3 3 8 ]----- , Vat. lat. 3347. Mbr., s. XV, 56 leaves. Written by Francesco
Ermolao Barbaro, Marino Grimani, Guglielmo Sirleto, Card. Marcello Benini di Niccolo de’Redolfini on 26 May 1425. Owned by Nicolaus Scvllacius
Cervini. Sicilianus and Fulvio Orsini.
ff. 168r-171 r: Lg. , tr. George ofTrebizond, preface to Francesco Barbaro only. ff. lr-38r: Grg. , tr. Bruni, with argument.
G. Mercati, Codici Latim Pico Grimani Pio, pp. 4-19; A. Diller, IM U 6 (1963): Nolhac, Fulvio Orsini, pp. 230, 368; Bruni, Schnften, pp. 228-229; Bertalot 2:
253-262; Iter 2: 584-585D; T. Khoury, Periodica onentalia Christiana 18 (1968): 268; Iter 2: 318E; J. Soudek, Stud. Med. Ren. Hist. 5 (1968): 60, 125, 134; C.
328; G. Gualdo, IM U 13 (1970): 50; Monfasani, George of Trebizond, passim; H. Lohr, Traditio 27 (1971): 319.
Trapezuntiana, pp. 64-66.
*339]----- , Vat. lat. 3348. Mbr., s. XV, 194 leaves. Written in Florence by
* 3 3 3 ]----- , Vat. lat. 2934. Cart., misc., ss. XV-XVI, 2 vols., 606 leaves Piero Strozzi, ca. 1455-1470 (communication of Virginia Brown and A. C. de
numbered consecutively. Several hands, Roman provenance. From Colocci. la Mare). Owned by Fulvio Orsini.
If. 418r-427r (vol. 2): Phd., tr. Bruni, second part. ff. 496r-543v (same hand, ff. 1r-13r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 13r-62v: Grg., tr.
s. XV 2/2): Phd., tr. Bruni, first part, with preface. Bruni, with argument, ff. 62v-66r: Smp. (215A-222A only), tr. Bruni. 11.
Iter 2: 357D; P. Rigo, Accad. Naz. Lincei, cl. sc. mor., stor., filol., Rendiconti 31 66r-82r: A p . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 82r-90v: Cri., tr.
(1976): 54, 57, 73; D. Mazzuconi, IM U 20 (1977): 203; J. Monfasani, Res Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 91r-133r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with pre­
publica litterarum 4 (1981): 210, 211. face. ff. 133r-165v: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Nolhac, Fulvio Orsini, p. 367; Bruni, Schnften, p. 229; Bertalot 2: 270; Iter 2:
* 3 3 4 ]----- , Vat. lat. 2951. Cart., misc., ss. XV-XVI, 300 leaves. Several 360D; above, pp. 47, 6 6 n, 74, 87, 394, 466f.
hands. Flv-leaf: “ Hie liber inceptus fuit die 15 Julii ... pontifice Nicolao quinto
1452.’’ *340]------, Vat. lat. 3349. Cart., misc., s. XV med., 207 leaves. Owned by
f. 79r (s. XV): Ep. IX, X, only, tr. Bruni. Panormita and Fulvio Orsini. f. 206r: “ Ant. Panhormitae liber” .
Iter 2: 315E; A. Bellodi, IM U 16 (1973): 340; G. Fioravanti, Rinascimento, ser. ff. 185r-192r: A x. , tr. Cassarino, with preface, ff. 194r-205v: Erx., tr. Cassarino,
2, 19 (1979): 161. with preface.
Nolhac, Fulvio Orsini, p. 221; Garin (1955), p. 360; Resta (1959), p. 252; Iter
*3 3 5 ]----- , Vat. lat. 3073. Cart., s. XV 1/4, 59 leaves. French or Flemish 2: 360-361D.
bastarda hand.
ff. lr-23v: Grg., tr. Bruni, with argument, ff. 40r-57r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with the *341]------, Vat. lat. 3400. Mbr., s. XV, 81 leaves. Owned by Fabio Farnese
shorter version of the preface to Innocent VII ( “ qui fuit tempore scismatis’’), and Fulvio Orsini.
inc. Cum inter ceteras tuas laudes. ff. 46r-81r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Bertalot 2: 268, 395; Iter 2: 316E; above, p. 49n. Iter 2: 319E.
* 3 3 6 ]----- , Vat. lat. 3345. Cart., s. XV, 235 leaves. Humanistic script,
*342]----- , Vat. lat. 3407. Mbr., s. XV 1/2, 89 leaves. Two humanistic cursive
decorated initials. Owned by Antonio Beccadelli (Panormita) and Fulvio
bookhands; decorated initials. From Fulvio Orsini.
Orsini.
ff. 31r-41r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
11. lr-220r: Lg. , tr. George ofTrebizond, without preface, ff. 220v-233r: Epin..
tr. George ofTrebizond. Bruni, Schnften, p. 229; Iter 2: 319E.
 730 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 731

* 3 4 3 ]----- , Vat. lat. 3441. Cart., misc., ss. XV-XVI, 204 leaves. Several *350]------, Vat. lat. 6898. Cart., misc., ss. XV-XVI. Many hands; perhaps
fascicules, many hands. From Fulvio Orsini. Scribal colophon, f. 134r: “ Ex­ Ferrarese provenance. Fly-leaf: “ Ex legato Willelmi domini Abbatis Stephani
plicit libellus Plutarchi 7 Kal. Novembr. anno Domini 1517.” Gradii Patricii Ragusini.”
If. 120r-128v (same hand as in colophon): Ax. , tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with pre­ f. 2r-v (s. XV 3/4, North Italian): Ep. VI only, tr. Anonymus Vaticanus. f. 104v
face to Angelotto Fosco. (another hand): a pseudo-Platonic letter, evidently conceived as a pendant to
Lockwood, p. 60; Iter 2: 363-364D. Ep. VI.
Iter 2: 341E; 8988D ts; U. Baldini, Annali delTIst. e Mus. di storia della scienza
*344]----- , Vat. lat. 3910. Cart., misc., s. XV, 112 leaves. 5.1(1980): 20; Cat. C, no. 1.
If. 82v-84v: Ep. VIII only, tr. Bruni.
*351]----- , Vat. lat. 7343. Mbr., s. XV, 74 leaves. Annotations in a sixteenth-
G. Mercati, Ultimi contnbuti alia sloria degli umamsti ST 90 (Vatican City, 1939), century hand.
pp. 33-34; Iter 2: 365-366D; D. Mazzuconi, IM U 20 (1977): 203, 229.
ff. lr-47r: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
*345]----- , Vat. lat. 4507. Cart., s. XV, 100 leaves. Humanistic bookhand, Iter 2: 342E.
written in Bologna.
If. lr-75v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with fragment of preface. * 3 5 2 ]------, Vat. lat. 8611. Mbr., s. XV, 188 leaves. Tuscan decoration
(Giuliano Amedei?). Coat of arms of Card. Francesco Todeschini Piccolomini.
Iter 2: 328E. Annotations in a sixteenth-century hand.
ff. lr-15v: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 15v-34r: Ap., tr.
*346]----- , Vat. lat. 4510. Cart., s. XV 2/2, 126 leaves. Humanistic cursive Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 34v-44r: Cn. , tr. Bruni, second ver­
bookhand.
sion, with argument, ff. 44r-93r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 93v-150v:
If. 61r-113v: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. Grg., tr. Bruni, without argument, ff. 150v-188v: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface
and argument.
Iter 2: 328E.
Bertalot 2: 268, 270; Iter 2: 385D.
*347]----- , Vat. lat. 5117. Mbr., s. XV, 90 leaves. Decorated initials. Owner’s
note, fly-leaf: “ Ad usum domini Jacobi et suorum amicorum’’. *353]------, Vat. lat. 8750. Cart., misc., s. XV ex.-XVI in., 284 leaves. Several
fascicules, many hands.
II. 29r-57v: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
ff. 150v-151r: A x. , tr. Cencio de’Rustici, excerpts only.
Iter 2: 33IE.
Iter 2: 385-386D.
* 3 4 8 ]----- , Vat. lat. 5220. Cart., s. XV 2/2, 89 leaves. Humanist cursive.
Possibly owned by George of Trebizond. *354]----- , Vat. lat. 8761. Cart., misc., s. XV, 174 leaves. Many hands.
ff. 32r-34v: L g. , tr. George of Trebizond, preface to Francesco Barbaro only. ff. 64v-65v: Ep. I, IX only, tr. Bruni.
Iter 2: 372D; Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 54, note 119; D. Mazzuconi, Iter 2: 345E.
IM G 20 (1977): 203, 229; Besomi and Regoliosi, Valle epistole, pp. 78-79;
Trapezuntiana, p. 69. *355]----- , Vat. lat. 9491. Mbr., s. XV, 60 leaves. Decorated initials in early
Florentine style. Written by Niccoli’s scribe Giovanni Aretino in Florence, 1
* 3 4 9 ]----- , Vat. lat. 6265. Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2, 220 leaves. Fly-leaf: November 1414.
“ Fuligno Fuligni nos vos illi amico suo salutem [jic]” . Rear fly-leaf (s. XVI):
ff. 2r-48r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.
“ Alla sig.ra Lucia d’Ancona’’. On a sheet of parchment pasted in at the end
(partly illegible): “ ... magistri Christophori de Ursinis j(uris) c(onsulti) ... Bruni, Schriften, p. 229; Iter 2: 347E; E. Berti, Mus. Helveticum 35 (1978):
magistri grammaticha’’. Scribal colophon, f. 219v: “ Ancone die ultima 135-148; above, pp. 394, 399.
Februarii 1460.’’
*356]----- , Vat. lat. 10669. Mbr., s. XV, 212 leaves. Written and decorated
ff. 125r-131v: C n . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 132r-146v: A p.,
in Milan ca. 1441, round humanistic bookhand, marginalia in the hand of Pier
tr. Bruni, second version, with argument.
Candido Decembrio. The dedication copy to Duke Humfrey of Gloucester.
Iter 2: 380D. Decoration attributed (A. C. de la Mare) to the Master of the Vitae Im-
732 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 733

peratorum. Donated by Duke Humfrev to Oxford in 1444; left to the Vatican 1868-73), 4: 10-11 ( = Cl. X, no. 14); Iter 2: 214E; C. Bianca, Scrittura, biblioteche
Library by Joseph Heywood (s. XX). e stampa a Roma nel ’400 (Vatican City, 1980), p. 130 note 108; Berti, p. 188.
Rep., tr. Pier Candido Decembrio, with prefaces, argumentula et capita librorum.
Brevis annotatio, and letters of transmission of Decembrio, Francesco Pizolpasso. *3 6 1 ]----- , Marc. lat. VI 134 (3565). Cart., misc., s. XV 1/2, 124 leaves.
and Duke Humfrev. Decorated initials. From SS. Giovanni e Paolo.

M. Vattasso and H. Carusi, CVL (1920), pp. 638-639; Garin (1955), p. 348; ff. Ir-l 8 r: Ap., tr. Bruni, First version, ff. 18v-27r: C n . . tr. Bruni, first version.
Zaccaria (1959), p. 180; T. De Marinis, La legatura artistica, 1 (1960), no. 278 P. Zorzanello, Cat. dei codd. lat. della Bibl. Naz. Marc, di Venezia (anast. repr.
with plate; Resta, Le epitomi, pp. 52-54 with plate; Hunt and de la Mare, Duke Trezzano, 1980-85), 1: 254-256; Bertalot 2: 270; Iter 2: 25ID; Berti, p. 152.
Humfrey, pp. 5-6. no. 10; Sammut, p. 40 note 65. 124, 138-143; above, p. 423f.
*362]----- , Marc. lat. VI 135 (3641). Cart., misc., s. XV, 105 leaves. Floren­
*357]----- , Vat. lat. 11020. Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2, 35 leaves. Scribal col­ tine decoration. From S. Giovanni in Verdara. Scribal colophon, f. 152v:
ophon, f. 25r: “ finit feliciter Ulme sedecima Julii anno Christi 1487 J <akob> ‘‘Opus absolutum ad petitionem Ioannis Marchanovae artium et medicinae
Lochner < U .F .S .E .> " . Notabilia. doctoris Patavini anno gratiae MCCCCLXVI BononieJ.
If. I9v-25r: Ax. , tr. Agricola, with preface to Langius. ff. lr-52r: Ep., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Iter 2: 347E; C. H. Lohr, Traditio 27 (1971): 318; on Lochner, see Luebeck, J. P. Thomasinus, Bibl. Venetae MSS publicae et prwatae (Udine, 1650), p. 18;
Stadtbibl. MS philol. 11 and 26. Valentinelli, Bibl. MSS , 4: 75-76 ( = Cl. X, no. 109); Iter 2: 223E.

*358]----- , Vat. lat. 11441. Cart, and misy., s. XV (1448-1480), 538 leaves. *363]----- , Marc. lat. VI 136 (3642). Mbr., s. XV 3/4, 64 leaves. Humanistic
A collection of many fascicules. Relevant parts written by Giovanni Antonio bookhand, Florentine (?) decoration.
Traversagni and his brother Lorenzo Guglielmo in 1457. From the Collegio
Romano. ff. lr-64r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.

f. 528r-v: E p. , tr. Bruni, excepts. Valentinelli, Bibl. MSS, 4: 1 ( = Cl. X, no. 1 ); Iter 2: 223E.

J. Ruysschaert, CVL (1958), pp. 41-54; J. Ruvsschaert, Bull. John Rylands Libr. *364]----- , Marc. lat. X 64 (3691). Cart., s. XV, 49 leaves. Humanistic cur­
36 (1953-54): 191-197. sive bookhand, written in Bologna, Bolognese decoration. Written for Giovanni
Marcanova in 1464/69, and left by him to S. Giovanni in Verdara.
*359]----- , Vat. lat. 11600. Cart., s. XV', 270 leaves. Florentine, written ca.
1470-1480. Extensive marginalia in the hand of Pier Leoni of Spoleto. Owner’s ff. 24r-37r (dated 1465): A p . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument.
note, fly-leaf: “ P. Beckx” . Valentinelli, Bibl. MSS, 6: 109-110 (Cl. XXII, no. 159); Bertalot 2: 271; Iter 2:
ff. 148v-270r: Prm., tr. William ofMoerbeke. ff. 200r-242v: Ficino’s translation 230-23 IE.
of the same text (the original version, not revised by Ambrogio Flandino), added
into the margin by another hand (s. XVI), beginning at 313A, inc. Cernis o *3 6 5 ]----- , Marc. lat. XI 26 (4428). Mbr., s. XV med., 72 leaves. Round
Socrates, quanta sequitur ambiguitas. humanistic bookhand, North Italian decoration. From Tommaso Giuseppe
Farsetti.
Kristeller, Journal of Phil. 53 (1956): 199; J. Ruysschaert, CVL (1958), pp.
384-387; J. Ruysschaert, Bull, de I’Acad. Roy. de Belgique. Cl. des lettres, ser. 5, ff. 56r-72v: A x. , tr. Cencio de’Rustici, without preface.
45.1(1960): 64; C. Steel, Scriptorium 31 (1977): 263; Steel, 1 : 9*-12*, 40*-42*; J. Morelli, Bibl. MSS di T. G. Farsetti, pt. 2 (1780), pp. 36-38, no. 96; Zor­
J. Monfasani, Rinascimento, ser. 2, 28 (1988), forthcoming. zanello, Catalogus, 1 : 456-457; Garin (1955), p. 369 (who gives an incorrect
shelf-mark); Iter 2: 239E.
*360] VENICE, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Zan. lat. 491 (1857). Cart.,
misc., s. XV, 168 leaves. Owned by Cardinal Bessarion. *366]----- , Marc. lat. XIV 12 (4002). Cart., s. XV, 123 leaves, numbered ir­
ff. 27r-36r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument, ff. 39r-49v: A p. , tr. regularly. Four hands, ranging from s. XIV ex. to s. XV 3/4. Scribal colophon
Bruni, second version, with argument, ff. 50r-55v: Cri. , tr. Bruni, second ver­ (fourth hand), f. 253r: ‘‘Opus absolutum Bononie mei Joannis Marchanovae
sion, with argument, ff. 56r-87v: Grg., tr. Bruni. ff. 88r-109v: Ep. , tr. Bruni. artium et medicinae doctoris anno nativ. MCCCCLXVI, V Idus Maias” .
with preface and argument. From S. Giovanni in Verdara.

A. M. Zanetti, Latina el italica D. Marci Bibl. codd. MSS per titulos digesta (V enice. ff. 177r-253r (fourth hand): Phd., tr. Bruni, fragmentary at the beginning.
1741), pp. 196-198; J. Valentinelli, Bibl. MSS ad s. Marci Venetiarum (Venice. Thomasinus, Bibl. Venetae, pp. 23-24; Zorzanello, Catalogus, 3: 29-32; Iter2\ 247E.
734 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 735

*367]----- , Marc. lat. XIV 118 (4711). Cart., misc., s. XV 1/2, 156 pages. ff. 96r-97v: Phd., tr. Bruni, preface only.
From Somaschi della Salute.
Iter 2: 299D.
pp. 1-27: Ap., tr. Bruni, first version, with the title “ Oratio Platonis in qua se
purgat Socrates in capitali judicio. ” pp. 134-148: Cm, tr. Bruni, first version, 375] VIENNA, Dominikanerkloster 231/258. Mbr., misc., s. XV. Italianate
Zorzanello, Catalogus, 3: 149-150; Bertalot, 2: 270; Iter 2: 247E; Berti, p. 152. hand. Acquired by the convent in 1463 and consigned to the use of the
Dominican Rudbertus Kasrer ex Salczunga in 1481.
*3 6 8 ]----- , Marc. lat. XIV 219 (4631). Cart., misc., s. XV, 176 leaves. ff. 87v-99v: Ax., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Angelotto Fosco.
Humanistic bookhand. From Giacomo Morelli.
R. Wolkan, Zeitschr. d. oesterreich. Vereinsf. Bibhothekswesen, ser. 2, 3 (1912): 18;
ff. 140v-161v: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. Iter 3: 54D.
Zorzanello, Catalogue, 3: 310-314; Iter 2: 267D.
376] VIENNA, Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek Phil. gr. 1. Cart., s. XVI.
Written possibly by Konstantinos Angelos. Owned by Sambucus.
*369] VENICE, Museo Civico Correr, Cicogna 245 (26). Mbr., s. XV, 69 un­
numbered leaves. Humanistic bookhand, decorated initial. Scribal colophon, f. Rep. , in Greek, with Ficino's Latin version copied into the margins in a late six­
69r: Explicit foeliciter Gorgias Platonis a Leonardo Aretino in latinum traduc- teenth century hand, with gaps at 379B-399B and 417A-621A.
tus [ra^.] absoluit anno Chrvsti MCCCCXXIIII Kal. Novembris.”
H. Hunger, Kat. d. gnech. Hss d. ONB, 1(1961), p. 137; Iter 3: 57D; Cat E, no. 17.
ff. lr-69r: Grg., tr. Bruni.
Bertalot, 2: 268; Iter 2: 28IE. 3 7 7 ] -----, Cod. lat. 298. Mbr., s. XV, 158 leaves.
ff. 130r-158r: E p. , tr. Bruni.
*370]----- . Correr 314. Cart., misc., s. XV, 38 leaves. Written and decorated
by Felice Feliciano da Verona in [1461]-1467. S. Endlicher, Cat. codd. philol. lat. Bibl. Pal. Vindobon. (Vienna, 1836), p. 136,
no. CCXXXVII; Tabulae codd. MSS praeter graecos et orientales in Bibl. Pal. Vin­
tl. 12r-22r: Cm, tr. Bruni, first version, with the incorrect rubric, "Phedon, sive dobon. asservatorum (Vienna, 1864-1912), 1 : 41; Iter 3: 58E.
de anima” . Cp. no. 92, above.
L. Pratilli, Atti del R. 1st. Ven. vol. 99, pp. 96-97; Alostra di codici autografi (exh. 3 7 8 ] ---- ( Cod. lat. 841. Mbr., s. XV, 79 leaves. Decorated initials. Owned
cat., Modena. 1932), p. 51; Bertalot 2: 270; Iter 2: 288D; Berti, p. 153. by Bartholomaeus Ghisilardus and Sambucus.
ff. 20v-79v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface.
3 7 1 ]----- , Morosini-Grimani 248 (olim 209). Cart., misc., s. XV 2/2, 149
leaves. Humanistic cursive bookhand. Owned by Marino Sanuto the Younger. M. Denis, Codd. MSS theologici Bibl. Pal. lat. aliarumque occidentalium linguarum
(Vienna, 1793-1802), 1.1: 605-610, no. 196( = Theol. 667); Tabulae 1: 141.
It. 110v-124v: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Mazzatinti 68: 159-161; Iter, vol. 6 ts. 3 7 9 ] ---- , Cod. lat. 2384. Mbr., s. XV 3/4, 137 leaves. Humanistic bookhand,
written and decorated in Florence lor Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary.
*372] VERONA, Biblioteca Capitolare CCXLI (202). Cart., misc., ss. XV- Owned by Joannes Alexander Brassicanus, a lawyer.
XVI. 202 leaves. W'ritten by Nicolaus de Judicibus, dated 20 November 1456. ff. lr-49r: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface, ff. 49v-103r: Grg., tr. Bruni, with argu­
Scholar’s copy. ment. ff. 103v-l lOv: A x., tr. Rinuccio Aretino, with preface to Angelotto Fosco
ff. 35v-36r: Ep. I only, tr. Bruni. (“ A. ep. Cavensis” ). ff. 111 r-128r: A p., tr. Bruni, second version, with argu­
ment. ff. 128v-137r: Cm, tr. Bruni, second version, with argument.
Iter 2: 296D.
Tabulae, 2: 6 6 ; Lockwood, p. 103; Fraknoi et al., Bibl. Corviniana (Budapest,
1927), p. 81; Bertalot 2: 270; F. Unterkircher, Inventor d. illumin. Hss. d. ONB
*373]----- , CCLV (227). Mbr.. misc., s. XV 1/2, 96 leaves. Round humanistic
(Vienna, 1957); C. Csapody, Bibl. Corviniana (New York, 1969), p. 74, no. 159;
bookhand, Paduan decoration. Owned by "‘Dominicus” (s. XV).
Bibl. Corviniana (Shannon, Ireland, 1969), p. 334, no. CXXII with plate; Iter 3:
If. 64v-95v: Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface. 62D.
Iter 2: 294 E.
3 8 0 ] -----, Cod. lat. 3192. Cart., misc., ss. XV-XVI, 203 leaves. German
*374]----- , CCCIII (303). Cart., misc., s. XV 1/2, 140 leaves. North Italian hand.
semi-humanistic script. ff. 2r-5r: Def., tr. Ficino. ff. 7r-10r: Ax., tr. Ficino.
736 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 737

Tabulae, 2: 225-227; Suppl. 1: LI; Iter 3: 63D. Rep. X, 614B-621D (Myth of Er) only, tr. Chrvsoloras and Uberto Decembrio.
S. De Ricci, Handlist of MSS in the Libr. oj the Earl of Leicester (Oxford, 1932), p.
3 8 1 ]----- , Cod. lat. 6002. Cart., s. XVI, 126 leaves. 37; W. O. Hassall. Cat. of the Libr. of Sir Edward Coke (London, 1950), p. 87a;
IT. 7r-68v: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface and argument. N. Mann, IM U 18 (1975): 198-199: Iter 3287D ts.
Tabulae, 4: 239.
3 8 8 ] ---- , no. 478. S. XV.
+ 382]----- , Cod. lat. 11324. Cart., s. XVI, 16 leaves. Owned by Johann Fug-
Phd., tr. Bruni.
ger. Extensive marginalia. Authorial (?) colophon, f. 16r: ‘"Finis Eoaxpa-coix;
3 :10X0^100; finiit D. Seuenus 18 Februarii anno 1541” . De Ricci, Handlist, p. 42; W. O. Hassall, The Holkham Library (Oxford, 1970),
A p. , tr. anon. (D. Seuenus?) p. 39; Iter 3262E ts.
Tabulae, 6: 309; Lehmann, Fuggerbibliotheken, 2: 586; F. Unterkircher, Die
datierten Hss. d. ONB von 1501 bis 1600 (Vienna, 1976), p. 132 and plate 141. 3 8 9 ] ---- , no. 479. Cart., misc.. s. XV. Owned by J. Congearius.
ff. lr-8v: Ap., tr. Bruni. second version, with argument: ff. 9r-14v: Cri.. tr.
*383] V ITER BO, Biblioteca Capitolare 25 (olim d 51). Cart., misc., s. XV 1/2, Bruni, second version, with argument.
leaves unnumbered. Semigothic bookhand.
De Ricci, Handlist, p. 42: Iter 3296D ts.
.4.v., tr. Cencio de’Rustici, with preface to Giordano Orsini. Phd., tr. Bruni,
fragmentary at the end, with preface.
390] WOLFENBUETTEL, Herzog-Augustsbibliothek Gud. lat. Q 246. Cart.,
L. Dorez, Revue des bibliotheques 5 (1895): 247-248; Bertalot 2: 134; Iter 2: 305D. misc., s. XV, 50 leaves. Decorated initials.
*384]----- , 44 (olim d 16). Cart., misc., s. XV 1/2, unnumbered leaves. Two ff. 40r-45v: A x. , tr. Cencio de’Rustici. ff. 46r-50v: Phd., tr. Bruni, fragmentary.
hands, the first a Florentine hand in the manner of Giovanni Aretino, the other O. von Heinemann et al., Die Hss. d. Herzogl. Bibl. zu Wolfenbuettel (Wolfenbuet-
a scholar’s hand (s. XV 2/4). tel, 1884-1913), pt. 4, 9: 215-216, no. 4551.
(second hand): Ep. I, IX, X, only (tr. Francesco Filelfo).
Iter 2: 306D. 3 9 1 ] ---- , Gud. lat. O 282. Cart., s. XV, 81 leaves.
ff. 51v-54r: A p . , tr. Bruni, second version, with argument.
*385] VOLTERRA, Biblioteca Comunale Guarnacciana 6210. Cart., s. XV,
86 leaves. Humanistic cursive, with autograph corrections. Annotated by Car­ Heinemann, pt. 4, 9: 227, no. 4587: Bertalot 2: 271.
dinal Bessarion and Nicolaus Cusanus. Apparently used by Ficino in preparing
his own translation. Datable to 1458/59.
392] ZURICH, Zentralbibliothek Car. C 100. Cart, and mbr., misc., ss. XIV-
ff. 61r-86v: Prm., tr. George ofTrebizond, with preface to Nicolaus Cusanus. XV, 164 leaves. Several hands. From the library' of P. Numagen.
Mazzatinti 2: 187; G. Funaioli, Studi ital. di filol. class. 18 (1910): 121-122; ff. 87r-90r (s. XV): Ep. III-VII onlv, tr. Bruni, fragmentary at the end of Ep.
Klibansky (1943), pp. 289-304; Garin (1955), p. 372; Iter 2: 309D; Monfasani, VII.
George of Trebizond. p. 169; L. Labowskv, Bessarion’s Library (Rome, 1979), p.
L. C. Mohlberg, Kat. d. Hss. d. Zentralbibl. Zuench, I: Die mittelalterl. Hss.
494; Trapezuntiana. p. 74; above, pp. 186 f.; 378 f., 431, 476f. and 477.
(Zurich, 1951), pp. 110-111, no. 266; Iter 6655D ts.
386] WASHINGTON, D. C., Folger Shakespeare Library V a, 107 (olim
Smedley 13). Mbr., s. XV 3/4, 48 leaves. Italian hand. Owned by Tullius de *393] COMITES LATENTES. Private Collection. Formerly San Marco 322
Binis. From Celotti. Formerly Phillipps 889 and 2941. and Phillipps 6569. Mbr., s. XV 3/4, unnumbered leaves. Coat of arms of
Giorgio Antonio Vespucci. Florentine decoration (ca. 1470). Written by G. A.
ff. 2r-22v: Phdr., tr. Bruni, with preface and argument.
Vespucci and donated by him to the San Marco library in 1499. Barberini arms.
Haenel, p. 890; Sotheby’s sale catalog (1896), lot 954; De Ricci, 1: 444; Cat.
Phd., tr. Bruni, with preface. Some Greek marginalia written by Vespucci.
nj the Folger Shakespeare Libr., 2: 679; Iter 7463D ts.
Ullman and Stadter, The Public Library, p. 222, no. 839; Sotheby’s Sale Catalog
+ 387] WELLS, NORFOLK, Library of the Earl of Leicester at Holkham (30 Nov. 1972 = Bibl. Philhppica, n.s., 11th part), lot 884 with plate (description
Hall, no. 428. Mbr., misc., s. XV, unnumbered leaves. Several hands. Owned of A. C. de la Mare); above, p. 384.
by Gasparino Barzizza and Giovanni Marcanova.
 C A TA LO G S 739

necessary to supplem ent the short title), and some selected references and
locations.
B P ag inations and the nam es of editors and translators appearing in
C E N S U S O F P R IN T E D E D IT IO N S parentheses have been supplied by me.
T h e incipits of individual translations m ay be found by consulting C at.
T h e aim of the following census is to list all of the p rin ted editions F an d C at. G , Index 1.
of the L atin translations of Plato m ade betw een 1400 and 1600, follow­ For the purpose of this census, a “ re p rin t” m eans th at the book has
ing the same criteria of inclusion and exclusion used in the census of the sam e content, on the sam e signatures, as an earlier p rin tin g by the
m anuscripts. H ere, as with the m anuscripts, my objective is to be as sam e p rin te r or publisher; a “ copy” is a work that has been set up with
com plete as possible w ithin the lim its of the bibliographical tools c u r­ the sam e content on the sam e signatures as an earlier p rin tin g by a dif­
rently available. I have used as a startin g point the “ C atalogues of ferent p rin te r or publisher; and a “ reissue” indicates that sheets from an
Printed E d itio n s” listed in the first six volum es of the Catalogus Trans- earlier p rin tin g have been issued with a new title page. T h is last term has
lationum et Commentanorum, ed. V. Brow n, F. E. C ran z and P. O . K ris- only been used where definite evidence exists (as in the case of no. 126)
teller (W ashington, D. C ., 1960-1986), together with the o th er reference that the item in question is not a reprint; it is of course usually difficult
works cited in the A bbreviations or in the census itself. Since such in practice to distinguish betw een a reprint and a reissue by the same
catalogs are frequently incom plete or incorrect, I have tried to inspect publisher.
personally as m any of the item s as possible (indicated w ith an asterisk
[*]). I have visited about 90 libraries in E urope and N o rth A m erica and ca. 1474
have sent out a circular letter to several h u n d red o th er libraries with *1] E p . , tr. Bruni, with letters of ps. Aeschines and ps. Philip of Macedon.
substantial collections of early im prints; the individuals and institutions Paris: Ulric Gering, Matthias Crantz and Michel Friburger.
who so kindly replied to this circular are acknow ledged in the preface
No TP, COL, or SIGN (52 leaves). 4to.
to vol. 1. I am especially grateful to the O esterreichische Na-
tionalbibliothek, the D eutsche S taatsbibliothek (D D R ), and the L ouvain CONT: E p. , tr. Bruni, with preface (f. 1) and argument.
U niversity L ibrary for p roviding copies of the relevant sections of their Panzer 2: 339, 656; Hain 13066; Reichling 4: 123; Graesse 5: 321; Brunet 4:
card-catalogs. 704; A. Claudin, The First Paris Press (London, 1898), pp. 2-63; Polain 9340;
Stillwell P704; The Library ( 1953): 197; Kristeller, Melanges Tisserant VII, ST 236,
For printings before 1600 I give, first, a brief bibliographical entry
p. 464n.; Goff P-773; NUC 461: 146.
sum m arizing the P latonic content, then (if I have seen the item ) a tra n ­
script of the title page (T P ) and the colophon (C O L ), w here the latter of­ BL IA.39025—Bibliotheque d’Angers—Basel UB (Heynlin’s copy)—Yale UL.
fers inform ation not given on the title page. T h ird ly I give the signatures,
page n um bers, and form at (fol., 4to, 8vo, etc.). In the fourth section I ca. 1475
list the relevant contents, giving titles, w ith incipits, of any prefatory *2] Ap. and Grg., tr. Bruni. Bologna: Printer of Barbatia, Johannina.
m atter that m entions the translations, w ith folio, page, colum n, or No TP, COL, or SIGN. 4to.
signature num bers. T h e fifth section lists bibliographical references; in
CONT: Ap. and Grg., tr. Bruni, with arguments, in two fascicules.
the eight instances w here no references are given the read er m ay assum e
that the im p rin ts are not m entioned in the p rin ted catalogs or secondary Panzer 9: 331, 969c, h; Fossi, Bibl. Magi. 3: 125; Graesse 5: 321; Brunet 4: 700;
Polain 9341; BNC 138: 887; Proctor 7360, 7361; Polain, Belgique, 7863; BM XV
literature know n to me. In the last section I give some selected locations,
6 : 812; Goff P-775.
the first of which (w ith its shelf-m ark) is always the copy th at has been
inspected. In this section I also list the libri annotati that h appen to have Paris BN Res. R.723—Florence BNC—Bodl.—Perugia BCA—Corsin.—
Marc.
come to m y atten tio n , though it should be said that I have m ade no
system atic attem p t to list all an n o tated copies of p rin ted books.
For printings after 1600, I use an abbrev iated form of entry: short title, ca. 1480
page num bers, form at, a b rief description of the content (where it is *3] Ax., tr. Agricola. Deventer: Richard Paffroet.
740 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 741

No TP. COL: Finit foeliciter Platonis philosophi Axiochus de contemnenda ment. Sph., with argument. Pol., with argume'nt. Prt. , with argument. Euthd.,
morte per venerabilem magistrum Rodolphum Agricolam de Gronyngen with argument. Hp. m i. , with argument. Chrm. , with argument. L a. , with argu­
laudabiliter editus ac bene emendatus et Daventrae in platea episcopi impressus. ment. Clit. , no argument. Cra., with argument. Grg., with argument. Ficino,
SIGN: a6 = (6 leaves). 4to. Comm, in Conv. Smp. Phdr., with argument. A p . , with argument. Cri. , with argu­
ment. Phd., with argument. M x. , with argument. Rep., with an argument for
CONT: Ax., tr. Agricola, with prefatory letter to Rodolphus Langius. each of the ten books. Ficino, Compendium in Ti. Ti. C nti. , with argument. Lg. ,
Brunet, Suppl. 2: 252; Campbell 1419; Copinger 2: 7.4768; BM XV 6- 46- with an argument for each of the twelve books. Epin. , with argument. Ep. I-XII,
Oates 3435; BMC 2: 717; STC-Holland, p. 170. with an argument for each of the twglve letters.

BL IA 47528—Cambridge UL. Panzer 1: 432.264; Hain 13062; Bibl. Borbonica 2: 315-316; Graesse 5: 320;
Brunet 4: 697; Fossi, Bibl. Maghab. 3: 23-24; Proctor 6405; Polain 9337; BNC
138: 848; BM XV 6 : 666-667; Polain, Belgique 3189; BNPL, c. 13; Stillwell
ca. 1483 P702; Della Torre, pp. 615-616; Suppl. 1 : LX-LXI; IGIBI 7860; John Rylands
3: 1423; Ridolfi, La stampa in Firenze (1958), pp. 20-21; Goff P-771; V.
*4] Ax., tr. Agricola. Louvain: John of Westphalia. Scholderer, Fifty Essays in XVth and XVIth c. Bibliogr. (1966), p. 207; Oates 2436;
No TP. COL: Arte laboratum opus Rodolphi Agricole eloquentie gloria BMC 191: 181; Sajd 2: 829, no. 2774; NUC 461: 121-122; Kristeller (1978),
prestantis Finit. passim.
SIGN: a-b8c6d° = (27 leaves). 4to. Corsin. 54. C .23-24—BAV—Berlin (East) SB—Bodl. — Bratislava UK—Cam­
bridge UL—Casanatense—Columbia UL—Florence BNC — Harvard UL, Inc.
CONT: (ss. a ’r-a6v) Ax., tr. Agricola, with prefatory letter to Rodophus 6405 with MS notes of Friedrich Creuzer—Marc.—Marucelliana—Morgan—
Langius. Other works of Agricola on ss. a'r-dV. [N.B.: Despite date assigned Paris BN—Prague SK CSR—Piacenza BC — Rome BNC — UCLA (MS
by bibliographers, f. I9r contains a letter of Agricola to Jacobus Barbirianus notes)—Upsala UB—Vienna ONB—Yale UL.
(inc. Reddite sunt mihi, suavissime Jacobe, in itinere simul) with the date “ Col-
oniae kalendis Novembris Anno LX X X X II” ; the relation of texts to signatures
and the uniform character of the typeface makes it unlikely that the letter could ca. 1490
have been added to a later reissue.] *6 ] Ep., tr. Ficino. Leipzig: Conrad Kachelofen.
Campbell 1420; Copinger 2: 2.4766; Polain, Belgique 3192; Oates 3777; NUC TP: Divi Platonis Epistole. No COL.
461: 138.
SIGN: a8d4 = (14 leaves). 4to.
Basel UB Frev-Gryn. N IV 2 (2)—Cambridge UL—Haarlem SB, 56 C 21 (with
MS notes). CONT: (f. lv) Paulus Niavis artium magister venerendo viro Wilhelmo de Egra
optimarum artium magistro canonico in Friberga domino et praeceptori suo col-
endo [Text 73]. (f. 2r) Ep., tr. Ficino, without arguments.
1484
Panzer 4: 478.970; Hain 13067; Copinger 2: 2.4765; Reichling 6 : 123; Proctor-
*5] Complete Works, tr. Ficino. Florence: Laurentius Venetus [et apud s. 2914; BM XV 3: 632; Stillwell P705; Kristeller (1956), p. 173; STC-Germany,
Jacobum de Ripolis]. p. 703; NUC 461: 146; Inc. Polon. 4474; Goff P-774.
No TP. COL: Impressum Florentie per Laurentium Venetum. BAV Inc. IV 151(6), with extensive MS notes of a German student—BL—
SIGN: a 10 b-c8 d-t6 g8 h !0 i-z8 &8 con8 rum6 + a-c8 d4 d3'4 e6 f-v 10 &8 con8 rum6 Bodl. — Harvard UL—Morgan—Pelplin Seminary—Prague SK CSR—Vienna
&8 con8 rum6 aa-bb8 cc-hh6 ii4 ll6 mm-rr8 ss 10 tt-zz8 per8 () 6 = (564 leaves). Fob,
ONB.
in two parts.
*7] Amat., tr. Ficino. Leipzig: Conrad Kachelofen.
CONT: (f. lv) Prohemium Marsilii Ficini Florentini in libros Platonis ad
Laurentium Medicem virum magnificum [Text 67], (f. 3r) Ficino, Platonis vita TP: Liber de philosophia Platonis. No COL.
et primo genealogia et genesis [Text 6 8 ]. (f. 7v) Tabula librorum Platonis a No SIGN (6 leaves). 4to.
Marsilio Ficino Florentino traductorum [Text 70], (f. id.) Ficino, Ad lectorem
[Text 69]. Then, beginning f. 8 r, the dialogues as follows: Hipparch. , with argu­ CONT: (p. 2) Paulus Niavis commendabli [Ur] viro Erasmo prespitero arcium
ment. Amat. , with argument. Thg. , with argument. Men., with argument. Ale. baccalario vitam in Kempnitz agenti domno et fautori suo plurimum amando
1, with argument. Ale. 2, with argument. Min., with argument. Euthphr.. with [Text 74], (pp. 3-12) Amat., tr. Ficino, with argument.
argument. Prm. , with argument. Phlb. , with argument. Hp. ma., with argument. Denis, Suppl. ad Maittaire 2: 640, no. 5649; Hain 11741; Reichling 4: 64, no.
Ly., with argument. Ly., with argument. Tht. , with epitome. Ion, with argu­ 1322; Kristeller (1956), pp. 172-173; Inc. Polon. 3902.
742 P A R T III CATALOGS 743

BAV Inc. IV 151 (8 ), with extensive MS notes of a German student. Platonis definitionibus. Xenocratis philosophi platonici liber de morte. COL:
Venetiis mense Septembri MIIID in aedibus Aldi.
1491 SIGN: A-I8 K4 L-M 6 N-Z8 & 10 = (186 leaves). Fol.
*8 ] Complete Works, tr. Ficino. Venice: Bernardinus de Choris and Simon de CONT: (s. Vvllir-Xliv) Def., tr. Ficino. (s. X"'v-Xv"r) Ax., tr. Ficino, with pref­
Luero for Andreas Toresanus de Asulo. ace to Piero de’Medici.
TP: Naldus Naldius Florentinus in huius operis laudem [Text 71], Diuus Plato. Hain 9358; Graesse 3:447; Brunet 4: 703; 3: 492-493; BNC 130: 878; BM XV
COL: Impressum Venetiis per Bernardinum de Choris de Cremona et 6: 557; BNPL, c. 44; Suppl. 1: LXIX; Stillwell J 193; Proctor 5559; Renouard
Simonem de Luero impensis Andree Toresani de Asula. 13 Augusti 1491. Aide, p. 13; Polain Belgique 2236; Oates 2177-79; GotfJ-216; NUC 276: 389; Sa­
jo 1: 537, no. 1777; M. Sicherl, IMU 20 (1977): 323-339.
SIGN: a4 a-o8 p-q10 r-z8 A-D 8 E-F 10 G-Z8 AA8 BB10 CC-GG 8 H H 10 II-
ZZ8 = (4) + 444 leaves. Fol., in double columns. BAV Inc. II 194—Basel UB—BL—Cambridge UL—Marc. — Paris BN—
UCLA A 1 J 226d with copious marginalia.
CONT: As in no. 5. Then (f. 338r): Ficino, Platonica iheologia de immortalitate
ammorum.
Maittaire 1: 532; Bibl. Borbomca 2: 314-315; Hain-Copinger 13063; Polain 9336;
Proctor 5216; Graesse 5: 320; Brunet 4: 497; Panzer 3: 305.1412; Bernoni, p.
276 (T 59); John Rylands 3: 1423; BNC 138: 848; BM XV 6 : 465b; Polain 1498
Belgique 3191; Suppl. 1: LXI; BNPL, c. 13; Stillwell P703; IGIBI 7861; BMC
*11] Ax., tr. Ficino. Paris: Guy Marchant for Jean Petit. Edited by Jacques
191: 182; NUC 461: 1 2 2 ; Sajo 2: 829, no. 2775.
Lelevre d’Etaples.
Corsin. 50.C.12 — Basel UB—Berlin (East) SB— BL—Brera—Columbia UL—
TP: In hoc libello continentur: Athenagoras, De resurrectione; Xenocrates
DLC — Florence BNC — Harvard UL— Heidelberg UB— Leiden UB—
Platonis auditor, De morte; Cebetis Thebani Aristotelis auditoris Tabula, miro
Ljubljana Cath. with MS notes of Peter Seebach, bp. of Ljubljana, d. 1568— artificio vite instituta continens. COL: Impressa Parisii [jic] a magistro Guidone
Marc. — Muenster UB—NY Public—Olomouc SVK—Paris BN—Prague SK Mercatore anno Domini MCCCCXCVIII die XVIII Augusti.
CSR—Salzburg UB— ’s Gravenhage Koninkl. Bibl. 169 D 27 with MS
notes. SIGN: a8b4 = (8 leaves). 4to.
CONT: (ss. avr-av'“r) Ax., tr. Ficino, with preface to Piero de’Medici.
ca. 1495 Hain 1907; Graesse 1: 245; GKW 2763; Polain 1415; Proctor 8008; BNC 4:
*9] Ax. , tr. Agricola. Mainz: Peter Friedberg. 1000; GKPB 7: 948, no. 10754; Stillwell A1042; Suppl. 1: LXX; Kristeller
(1956), p. 51; NUC 461: 139.
TP: Axiochus Platonis de contemnenda morte (then two elegaic couplets). No
COL. Morgan Libr. Ch L 1442—Paris BN Res. p.R . 253—Harvard UL—Marc.
Yale UL.
SIGN: A8 = (8 leaves). 4to.
CONT: (s. A'v) Jacobus Canter Phrysius artium ingenuarum professor, poeta
laureatus, Joanni Rinco Agrippinae Coloniae civi optimo amico suo primario
salutem. (s. A"v) Ad Joannem Rincum eiusdem Jacobi Canteris epigramma. *12] Chrm., tr. Poliziano (fragment). Venice: Aldus.
(s. A‘"r-Av"1v) Ax. , tr. Agricola, with prefatory letter to Langius.
TP: Opera omnia Angeli Politiani et alia quaedam lectu digna. COL: Venetiis
Copinger 2: 2.4767; Polain 9342; Proctor 193; BM XV 1: 49b; Polain, Belgique in aedibus Aldi Romani mense Julio MUD.
3193; BNPL, c. 145; BMC 2: 717.
SIGN: a-p8 q-r10 s-t8 A-I8 K4 L-P8 Q.-R10 S8 T 10 V 6 X-Y 10 Z8 & 10 aa10 bb-hh8
BL IA 432—Berlin (East) SB.
ii6 = (456 leaves). Fol.
CONT: Chrm., tr. Poliziano, fragmentary, with preface to Lorenzo de’Medici
1497 [Text 64].
*10] Def. and Ax. , tr. Ficino. Venice: Aldus. Graesse 5: 389; Brunet 4: 780; BNC 140: 136; Oates 2184-5; BMC 4: 499;
TP: Index eorum quae hoc in libro habentur: Iamblichus de mvsteriis Aegyp- NUC 463: 90.
tiorum, Chaldaeorum, Assyriorum, ... Speusippi Platonis discipuli liber de BL IB 24472—Basel UB—BAV—Cambridge UL—Harvard UL—Marc.
 744 P A R T III CATALOGS 745

1499 CONT: (ff. CCLXXIIIIr-CCLXXVr): Halcyon, tr. Dati, with preface to Alex­
ander de Azoguidis Bononiensis, O. P. [Text 31].
*13] A copy of no. 12.
Panzer 8 : 292.2; Graesse 2: 337; Brunet 2: 527; BNC 5: 1140; Adams 1: D. 141;
COL: Impressum Florentine et accuratissime castigatum opera et impensa NUC 133: 499; BMC 43: 1047; Sanders 1: 422, no. 2391.
Leonardi de Arigis de Gesoriaco die decimo Augusti MID. [According to the
BMC, “ a piratical reprint of the Aldine edn. with a false imprint (actually BAV Chigi 11.415—DLC—Florence BNC — Harvard UL—Marc.—Yale UL.
Brescia: Bernardinus Misinta) to disguise the fact that it was printed in the
Venetian dominion.” ] 1506
Graesse 5: 389; BNC 140: 137; BMC 4: 500; Oates 2639; NUC 464: 90. *17] Ax., tr. Agricola. Deventer: Richard Paffroet.
BL IB 31268— Basel UB—Cambridge UL—Paris BN. TP: Hoc opere continentur ordine libri subscripti: Divi Hieronymi epistole due
__ Platoms de contemnenda morte qui Axiochus inscribitur. ... COL: Im­
pressum Daventriae per me Richardum Pafraet anno Domini MCCCCCVI in
ca. 1500 die sancte Clare [12 August].
14] Hipparch. , Amat., Thg., tr. Ficino. Deventer: Jacobus de Breda. SIGN: A-F8 G ’ = (53 leaves). 4to.
TP: Marsilii argumentum in Hipparchum. COL: Impressum Daventrie per me CONT: (ss. F-v-G’r) as in no. 9.
Iacobum de Breda.
Campbell 1874; Nijhoff 1: 387, no. 1072; 3: 137, no. 0995; Polain Belgique 1952;
SIGN: a-b6 c4 = (16 leaves). 4to. BMC 191: 241; 2: 717.
CONT: (ss. a~r-a’v) Hipparch., tr. Ficino, with argument, (ss. a5v-b3v) Amat. , BL 10905.f.4—Berlin (East) SB—Deventer Athenaeum-Bibliotheek.
tr. Ficino, with argument, (ss. b4r-c 3v) Thg., tr. Ficino, with argument.
Panzer 1 1 : 320.164c; Hain 13069; Graesse 5: 320; Brunet, Suppl. 2: 252; Camp­ 1507
bell 1421; Polain Belgique 3194; Oates 3545. *18] Ax., tr. Ficino. Strasbourg: Johannes Knoblouch.
Cambridge UL—Berlin (East) SB—Prague SK CSR. TP: Marsilii Ficini Florentini De religione Christiana et Fidei pietate opusculum.
Xenocrates De morte, eodem interprete. COL: Impressum Argentine per Ioan-
nem Knoblouch anno Domini MDVII Nonas Decembris [5 December].
ca. 1502
SIGN: a-n8 o-q4 r6 = (122 leaves). 4to.
+ 15] Ax. , tr. Agricola. Paris: Badius Ascensius for Alexandre Aliate.
CONT: (s. a‘v) Magnificis viris christianae theologiae professoribus D. loanni
TP: Axiochus Platonis de contemnenda morte. (Followed by two elegaic Gevler de Kevserberg et Jacobo Vuynpfelingio Argentine commorantibus Ioan-
couplets; then:) Venundatur ab Alexandro Haliatte Mediolanensi sub leunculis nes Adelphus Mulingus seipsum commendat [Text 77], (ss. q'"v-rlvr) as in no.
aureis e regione collegii Italorum in Monte diui Hilarii. 11 .
SIGN: A4 = (4 leaves). 4to.
Maittaire 2: 182; Panzer 6:37.94; Suppl. 1: LIX; STC-Germany, p. 302.
CONT: (s. A‘v) Agricola, preface to Langius. (ss. A"r-A'vv) A x. , tr. Agricola. BL C.53.bb.9 ( 1 )—Berlin (East) SB.
Fabricius (1793) 2: 694; Renouard, Impnmeurs 1: 18, no. 94; B. Moreau, Invent,
chronologique des edd. Paris, du XVIe siecle. 1 (Paris, 1972): 87, no. 112. ca. 1508
Lyons, Bibl. de la Ville B 493520—Colmar—Selestat. + 19] A x. , tr. Ficino. Deventer: Jacobus de Breda.
TP: In hoc opere insunt: Praefatio Marsilii Ficini in librum Xenocratis De
1503 morte. Xenocratis platonici De morte liber utilissimus. Antonii Mancinelli ser-
mo in Somnium Scipionis. Somnium Scipionis ex sexto libro M. Tulii De
*16] Halcyon, tr. Dati. Siena: Simeon Nicolai Nardi. Ed. by Niccolo Dati. republica excerptum.
TP: Augustini Dathi Senensis opera. COL: Impressum Senis ex archetypo per SIGN: A-B6 = (12 leaves). 4to.
Svmionem Nicolai Nardi anno salutis MDIII sexto Kal. Novembris.
CONT: (ss. A'Y-B'r) Ax., tr. Ficino, with preface to Piero de’Medici.
SIGN: a a 6 bb8 a - b 8 c4 d - m H n 4 o-p8 q 6 r - l H A-K 8 L+ = (14) + C C L X X X X
leaves. Fob Nijhoff 2: 891, no. 4097; Suppl. 1: LXX; NUC 461: 139; 677: 149.
746 PART i n C A TA LO G S 747

DLC PA 4280 A4F5, with MS student notes in a French hand—Louvain UB Panzer 8 : 4; Graesse 1: 44; BNC 1: 347; Nijhoff 1 : 16-17; GKPB 2: 305; BNPL,
copy disappeared during the Second World War. c. 47; PCCBI 2: 114; Ind. Aur. 101.726; BMC 2: 718; STC Holland, p. 3;
Adams 1: A .370.
1508 BAV Race. gen. I. IV. 1677—Basel UB—BL—Huntington Libr.—Paris BN—
*20] Halcyon, tr. Dati. Lyons: Claudius Davest de Troys for Simon Vincent. Princeton UL—Vienna ONB.
TP: Simphoriani Champerii de triplici disciplina cuius partes sunt philosophia
naturalis, medicina, theologia, moralis philosophia, integrantes quadriuium. 1512
Contenta in hoc volumine: ... Halcyon Platonis. COL: Impressum est praesens *23] Chrm. , tr. Poliziano (fragment). Paris: Badius Ascensius. Two volumes.
opus Lugduni expensis honestissimi bibliopole Simonis Vicentii, arte vero et in-
dustria Claudii Davest, alias de Troys. Anno domini MCCCCCVIII Finitum TP: Omnium Angeli Politiani operum (que quidem extare nouimus) tomus
pridie Kal. Martii ... anno etatis mee XXXVI. prior [-posterior] ... Vaenundantur in edibus Ascensianis et Ioannis Parui.
COL: Parrhisiis in aedibus Iodici Badii Ascensii mense Maio MDXII.
SIGN: A-C h a-m8 n' aa-nn3 oo 4 aaa-fff8 = (283 leaves). 4to.
CONT: (Vol. 1, ff. XCVIv-XCVIIIr) as in no. 12.
CONT: (ss. fff'r-ffTr) Halcyon, tr. Dati, without preface.
Panzer 7: 562.525; Renouard, Badius 3: 187-189; Renouard, Impnmeurs 2: 97,
Panzer?: 190.117; Graesse 2: 114; Brunet 1 : 1766; BMC 138: 880; Renouard, no. 195; BMC 4: 500; NUC 464: 90.
Badius 2: 267; Pennink 506; STC-France, p. 98; BMC 35: 753; Adams 1:
C. 1322; BNPL, c. 46. BL 631.1.14—Basel UB—Harvard UL—Paris BN Res. m.Z.411.
BL 773.b. 16—Angel.—Cambridge UL—Marc. — Paris BN—Vienna ONB.
ca. 1515
1510 *24] Ax. , tr. Ficino. Nuremberg: Fridericus Peypus.
*21] Ax., tr. Ficino. Paris: printed for Bertholdus Rembolt and Joannes TP: Xenocratis philosophi platonici liber de morte, translatus e graeca lingua
Waterloes. A new printing of no. 18. in latinam a Marsilio Ficino Florentino ad clarissimum virum Petrum
TP: Marsilii Ficini Florentini De religione Christiana et fidei pietate opusculum. Medicem. Fridericus Peypus Nurenbergae impressit. No COL.
Xenocrates, De morte, eodem interprete. Johannes Adelphus Mulingus [,rcz7. SIGN: A6 = (6 leaves). 4to.
Malichius] curauit. COL: Impressum Parrhasiis in sole aureo vici divi Iacobi,
expensis magistri Bertholdi Rembolt et Joannis Waterloes anno Domini CONT: Ax., tr. Ficino, with preface to Piero de’Medici.
MCCCCCX die vero X X X mensis Octobris. Panzer 7: 486.342; Suppl. 1: LXX; NUC 461: 139.
SIGN: a-d8 e 4 f-h8 i4 = (64 leaves). 4to. Harvard Gp 82.540.5*—Berlin (East) SB.
CONT: (ss. hvlllv-j"'v) as in no. 18.
BNC 51: 706; Kristeller in Postello, Venezia e il suo mondo, ed. M. L. Kuntz 1515
(Florence, 1988), pp. 1-18. *25] Ax., tr. Agricola. Leipzig: Valentinus Schumans
Paris BN Res. D.7671—Res. D .80186 with MS notes of Guillaume Postel. TP: Divini Platonis libellus cui Axiochus nomen de contemnenda morte,
Rodolpho Agricola interprete felicissimo. Nicolai Buxthudii Luberani ad lec-
1511 torem epigramma (followed by the epigram on the title page.) COL: Lypsi in
aedibus Valentini Schumans mense Mayo anno MDXV.
*22] A x. , tr. Agricola. Antwerp: Theodericus Martinus.
SIGN: A 6 B4 = (10 leaves). 4to.
TP: Rodophi Agricolae Phrysii viri utriusque literaturae peritissimi nonnulla
opuscula hac sequuntur serie: Axiochus Platonis de contemnenda morte versus CONT: (s. A‘v) Joannes Ziegler artium liberalium magister amoenioris
e graeco in latinum ... COL: Anverpiae pridie Calendas Februarias anno literaturae studiosus Nicolao Buxthudio Lubecano discipulo s. d. (s. A"r) In
MDXI ... Theodericus Martinus Alostensis imprimebat. Axiochum Platonis ad Nicolaum Stotrogium Hermannus Tulichius. (ss. A"v-
Blvv) Ax. , tr. Agricola, with prefatory letter to Langius.
SIGN: a-m8n:, = (101 leaves). 4to.
Panzer 7: 190.521; Graesse 5: 321; BNC 138: 882; BNPL, c. 48.
CONT: (s. a"r-v) Petrus Egidius Anuerpianus Martino Dorpio Theologo
amico iucundissimo s. d. (Inc.) Quam nuper aliquot Rodolphi Agricolae viri in- Paris BN Res. X. 1108(2) with extensive MS student notes—Zittau, Christian-
signis doctrinae opuscula nactus sum. Rest (ss. a'l'r-avl,lr) as in no. 3. Weise-Bibliothek with MS notes.
748 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 749

*26] Ax. , tr. Ficino. Augsburg: Sylvan Othmar. TP: Index eorum quae hoc in libro habentur: lamblichus, De mysteriis Aegyp-
TP: Xenocrates, De morte. COL: Svlvanus Othmar Chalcographus formis ex- tiorum, Chaldaeorum, Assvriorum ... Speusippi Platonis discipuli liber de
cusit [juc] Augustae Vindelvcorum apucl aedem divae Crsulae cis Lvchum anno Platonis definitionibus ... Xenocratis philosophi platonici liber de morte ...
MDXV, XIIII Julii. COL: Venetiis in aedibus Aldi et Andreae soceri mense Novembri MDXVI.
SIGN: a4 b* = (7 leaves). 4to. SIGN: A-Y8 = 176 leaves. Fob
CONT: Ax. . tr. Ficino, with preface to Piero de'Medici. CONT: (ff. 84v-88r) as in no. 10.
Panzer 6: 143.78; Suppl. 1: LXX; STC-Germanv, p. 930. Panzer 7: 434.795; Graesse 3: 447; Brunet 3: 493; BNC 138: 878; Renouard,
Aide, pp. 77-78, no. 8 ; BNPL, c. 44; Suppl. 1: LXIX; NUC 276: 389; Adams
BAV Barb. J. III.71 — BL 8461 ,c.30. 1: 1. 1 .
BAV Ross. 2790—Ambros. — Basel UB—Budapest BN—Marc.—Vallicelliana.
1516
*27] Halcyon, tr. Dati. Venice: Augustinus de Zannis de Portesio for Peter 1517
Liechtenstein. A new edition of no. 16.
*30] Complete Works, tr. Ficino. Venice: Philippus Pincius.
TP: Augustini Dathi Senensis opera nouissime recognita omnibusque mendis
expurgata ... COL: Expliciunt omnia opera aurea ciarissimi oratoris Augustini TP: Platonis opera. COL: Venetiis a Philippo Pincio Mantuano hoc opus im-
Dathi Senensis novissimae [m-] recognite [xtr] cunctisque mendis expurgata pressum fuit anno Domini MCCCCCXVII Aprilis.
summaque diligentia Venetiis impensa [sal. impressa] per Augustinum de Zan­ SIGN: ()6 a-z8 &8 con8 rum8 A-Y8 Z6 = (390 leaves), numbered as follows:
nis de Portesio, mandata et impensis Petri Liechtenstein Coloniensis Germani, (6 ) + I-CXX + 167-179 + CXXXVII-CCCLXXXIX. Fob
anno salutigero MDXVI die tertio Januarii.
CONT: as in no. 5.
SIGN: aa-bbb a-z8 V con8 rum8 A-D 8 = (16) + CCXXXIX leaves. Fob
Assemani, p. 472; Panzer 7: 438.837; Suppl. 1 : LXI; STC-Italy 2: 606; BMC
CONT: (ff. CCXXVIv-CCXXVIIv) as in no. 16. 191: 182; NUC 461: 122; Adams 2: P.1442.
Panzer 8 : 431.772; Graesse 2: 337; BNC 35: 1140; NUC 133: 499: Adams 1: Florence BN 22. B.3.40—BL 722.1.21—BAV—Barcelona UB—Bergamo BC —
D. 142. Brera—Cambridge UL—Chicago UL—Duke UL—Marc. — Naples BN—
BAV Chigi 11.579—Cambridge UL—Marc. — Paris BN. Piacenza BC—Salamanca UB—Toronto UL—Udine BC.

*28] Dej. and Ax. , tr. Ficino. Pavia: Iacobus Pulchridrapensis de Burgofrancho. 1518
Edited by Franciscus Taegius.
*31] Ax. , tr. Agricola. Basel: xAdam Petrus.
TP: Index eorum que in hoc volumine continentur: Grecorum sapientum
volumina quedam aureis sententiis refertissima apud raros vulgata: Pvthagore TP: Axiochus Platonis de contemnenda morte, Rodolpho Agricola interprete.
philosophi aurea verba, Socratis philosophi symbola, Pseusippi [.nr] platonici COL: Basileae in officina Adae Petri anno MDXVIII.
liber de omnium rerum diffinitionibus, Xenocratis platonici liber de morte. ... SIGN: a-b+ = (2) + 13 pp. 4to.
COL: Iacobus Pulchridrapensis de Burgofrancho haec aurea graecorum sapien­
tum collectanea omni arte et sollertia imprimi curabat in alma et inclvta civitate CO NT: as in no. 3.
Papiae MDXVI, IIII Idus Martii. Panzer 6 : 208.248; BMC 2: 717; STC-Germanv, p. 703; NUC 5: 262-263;
SIGN: A-E6 = X X X leaves. Fol. Graesse 5: 321; BNC 138: 881; Adams 1: A .371; Pennink 1820; GKPB 2: 305;
Durling, no. 60; Ind. Aur. 101.730; Schueling, Postinkunabeln, p. 410.
CONT: (f. Iv) Franciscus Taegius, preface to Philippus Decius [Text 78]. (f.
IIv) Dej., tr. Ficino, without preface, (ff. IVr-Vv) Ax. , tr. Ficino, without BL 525.k. 13—Basel UB—Berlin (East) SB—Piacenza BC.
preface.
*32] Complete Works, tr. Ficino. Ax., tr. Agricola. Halcyon, tr. Dati. Paris:
Panzer 7: 498.24; BMC 3:16
Badius Ascensius.
BL 528.n.23 — Perugia BCA.
TP: Platonis opera a Marsilio Ficino traducta, adiecta ad eius vitae et operum
ennarrationem Axiocho ab Rodolpho Agricola et Alcyone ab Augustino Datho
*29| Dej. and Tv., tr. Ficino. Venice: Aldus. A new printing of no. 10. tralatis. Vaenundantur ab Ioanne Parvo et Iodoco Badio. COL: Haec autem
750 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 751

impressa sunt solertiore cura in aeclibus Ascensianis anno Domini MDXVIII 1519
quinto Kalendas Junias. Deo gratias.
*35] Chrm., tr. Poliziano (fragment). Paris: Badius Ascensius. A new edition of
SIGN: a8 a-z8 &8 con8 rum8 A-Y 8 Z8 = (8 ) + CCCLXXXIX leaves. Fol. no. 23. In two volumes.
CONT: (s. a'v) Badius, preface to Michael Bodetus [Text 79]. (ss. aur-a'vr) TP: Omnium Angeli Politiani operum (quae quidem extare nouimus) Tomus
Ficino, preface to Lorenzo de’Medici [Text 67], (ss. alv v-avlr) Ficino. Vita prior [posterior], in quo sunt ... Charmides Platonis a Politiano latinitate
Platonis [Text 6 8 ]. (ss. av'v-avllv) A x. , tr. Agricola, without preface, (s. av,lir-v) donatus, opus imperfectum. ... Vaenundantur in aedibus Ascensianis cum
Halcyon, tr. Dati, without preface. Then (ff. Ir-CCCLXXXIXv) the dialogues gratia et privilegio. 1 COL (vol. 2): Parrhisiis in aedibus Iodoci Badii Ascensii
in their Ficinian order with arguments and commentaries, as in no. 5. ad XII Kalendas Martias anni ad supputationem Romanum MDXIX.
Panzer 8 : 46.998; Graesse 5: 320; Pellechet, Guilliand, p. 157, no. 316; Ritter, CONT: (vol. 1, ff. CXXIIv-CXXIIIr) Poliziano, preface to Lorenzo de’Medici
p. 633, no. 1716; Suppl. 1 : LXI; BNPL, c. 123; Renouard, Imprimeurs 2: 168, [Text 64], preceded by (f. CXXIIr-v) a brief lemmatic commentary on the prel­
no. 389; NUC 461: 122; Adams 2: P.1443. ace by Badius [Text 65]. (ff. CXXIIIv-CXXXIVr) Chrm.. tr. Poliziano, preced­
Columbia UL Gonzalez Lodge 1518. P697 — Bergamo BC — Berlin (East) SB— ed by (f. CXXIIIv) a brief lemmatic commentary on the translation by Badius
Bologna UB—Cambridge UL—Jerusalem Nat'l Libr. — Madrid BN—Piacenza [Text 65],
BC —Yale UL. Panzer 7: 54.1077; Graesse 5: 389; BNC 140: 137; Renouard, Badius 3:
189-192; Renouard. Imprimeurs 2: 182, no. 428; NUC 464: 90.
Paris BN Res. Z.298—Cambridge UL—Harvard UL.
+ 33] Hipparch., A mat. , Thg. and Ep. IV. IX only, tr. Ficino. Cologne: Nicolaus
Caesar. 1521
TP: Divini Platonis eloquentia pariter ac sapientia praeclari dialogi tres. Primus *36] Ale. 1, Ale. 2 tr. Ficino. Bologna: Justianus de Herberia.
de cupiditate lucrandi, de philosophia secundus, tertius de sapientia. Primo
Hipparcho nomen. secundus Amatores inscribitur, postremo Theages. Ex- TP: In nomine domini nostri Jesu Christi amen. Uterque divini Platonis
cellentissimi praeterea philosophi Aristotelis Oeconomicorum libri duo [tr. Alcibiades, ubi quid homo est, quod eius officium, quod votum esse debeat in­
Bruni], quibus nihil excogitare potest utilius. COL: Coloniae apud Nicolaum dicator ... COL: Impressum est hoc eximium opusculum per Iustianum de
Caesarem in vico qui venter felis, vulgo Katzenbuch, dicitur commorantem. Herberia Idibus Ianuarii MDXX [o.s.] in alma legitima divinorum et
Anno Christi incarnati MDXVIII sexto Kalendas Augusti. humaniorum studiorum matre ac reformatrice Bononia. Laus Deo et gloria.

SIGN: A” B-F4 =(26 leaves). 8 vo. SIGN: F+ A-F4 = 28 leaves. 4to.

CONT: (ss. A'v-A'’r) Hipparch., tr. Ficino. with argument, (ss. Avlr-Blvv) CONT: (ss. F‘v-Flvr) Julius Valerianus, preface to Giles of Viterbo [Text 80],
Amat., tr. Ficino, with argument, (ss. B'vv-D'"v) Thg., tr. Ficino, with argu­ (ss. A'r-Fivr) Ale. 1, 2 (tr. Ficino), without arguments.
ment. (ss. F'"r-F"r) Ep. IV, IX only, tr. Ficino, without arguments. BNC 138: 878; BNPL, c. 44; Suppl. 1: LXII; Sanders 2; 981, no. 5741.
Bodl. 290 j . 19 with MS notes—Cologne UB A. D.245—Leipzig UB Philos, gr. BL C. 136.ee. 19—Bologna UB—Bologna Archiginnasio—Paris BN—Vienna
9a—Muenster UB— Uppsala UB—Vallicelliana S. Borromeo G. II. 135. ONB.

1522
*34] Xv., tr. Agricola. Basel: Andreas Cratander and Servatius Cruftanus. A *37] A reprint of no. 32, with Badius’ preface redated to “ MDXXII ad Idus
new printing of no. 2 2 . Septembris” .
TP: Rodolphi Agricolae Phrisii viri utriusque literaturae peritissimi nonnulla Panzer 11: 489.1315b; Graesse 5: 320; Columbina 6 : 18; Renouard, Badius 3: 169;
opuscula quorum catalogum proxima pagella reperies. COL: Basileae apud An­ Suppl. 1: LXI; Renouard, Imprimeurs 2: 214, no. 512; NUC 461: 122; Adams 2:
tiream Cratandrum et Servatium Cruftanum mense Octobri anno MDXVIII. P.1444; P. V. Reesey, Incunabula et hunganca antiqua 2: 208, no. 22; Ph.
SIGN: a-p4 qJ = (63 leaves), numbered irregularly. 4to. Renouard, Inventaire chronologique des editions pansiennes 3 (1985): 148, no. 388.

CONT: as in no. 22.

1 The title page of this imprint is identical with the 1512 edition and was probably
Panzer 7: 190.521; STC-Cermanv, p. 703; BNC 1: 347; Pennink 1320.
reused from that edition, since the contents listed thereon do not match the actual
Marc. 76.c. 120— Basel UB—Vienna ONB. contents.
752 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 753

BAV Barb. I. IV.65—Barcelona UB—Cambridge UL—Folger—Harvard 1528

UL—Madrid BN; Piacenza BC — Rice.—Seville, Colombina—Yale. *40] Chrm.. tr. Poliziano (fragment). Lyon: Sebastian Gryphius.
TP: Angeli Politiani operum tomus primus [-alter], Epistolarum libri XII et
Miscellaneorum centuriam unam complectens. Sebastianus Gryphius germanus
1523 excudebat Lugduni anno MDXXVIII. COL (Vol. II): Lugduni apud Sebas-
*38] Spuria, tr. Pirckheimer. Nuremberg: Fridericus Peypus. tianum Grvphium anno MDXXVIII.
Vol. I: X V I+ 675 pp. Vol. II: XVI + 647 pp. 8 vo.
TP: Dialogi Platonis Axiochus vel De morte, Eryxias uel De diviciis, De iusto.
Num virtus doceri potest, Demodocus vel De consultando, Sisyphus siue de con- CONT: (Vol. II) as in no. 12. Cf. no. 45.
sulendo, Clitophon seu admonitorius, Definitiones Platonis, Bilibaldo Pir-
Panzer 7: 345.577; Graesse o: 389; Brunet 4: 780; Baudrier 8 : 46; BNC 4: 500;
ckhevmero interprete. Nurimbergae apud Fridericum Pevpum anno
MDXXIII. No COL. NUC 464: 90.

SIGN: a-i+= (36 leaves). 4to. Basel UB, D. E. IX. 10.10a (vol. I only)—Paris BN. Res. p. Yc. 1217(4) (a frag­
ment of vol. II onlv)—BL—Harvard LL *63-2156 (vol. II only).
CONT: (s. a-r) Nobili ac clarissimo viro D. Bernhardo Adelman de
Adelmansselden, &c., Bilibaldus Pirckheymer s. d. p. (Dated: “ ex secessu 1529
nostro Neopagano [Neuhof] Kal. Sept, anno salutis nostre MDXXI ” .) (ss.
b‘r-i+r) Ax., Eryx., lust., Virt., Demod., Sisyph., Clit., Def., tr. Pirckheimer. *41] Halcyon, tr. Vincentius Obsopoeus. Hagenau: Johannes Secerus.
Maittaire 2: 637; Panzer 8 : 465.180; Graesse 5: 620; BNC 138: 873; BNPL, TP: Elegantissima aliquot Luciani opuscula iam recens per \ incentium Ob-
c. 39; STC-Germany, p. 703; NUC 461: 139; Holzberg, pp. 301-303. sopoeum latinitate donata, quorum catalogum in proxima reperies pagella.
Epistola nuncupatoria ad illustrissimum ac vere pium principem D. Georgium
Columbia LL B8 8 PJ PP—BL—Neustadt a. d. Aisch, Kirchenbibl.—Paris Marchionem Brandenburgensem ... Haganoae per Iohan. Sec. anno
BN—Vienna ONB. MDXXIX. COL: Apud Haganoam per Iohan. Secer. excudebatur anno
Domini MCXIX [.nr] mense Martio.
SIGN: A-Z8 AA-HH 8 = (248 leaves). 8 vo.
1527
CONT: (ss. Q:!v-Q 6v) Luciani dialogus Halcyon sive De transformatione
*39] 75., tr. Ficino, ed. Franciscus Zampinus. Paris: [Prigent Calvarin]. Vincentio Obsopoeo interprete.
TP: Timaeus, vel de natura divini Platonis, Marsilio Ficino interprete, per Panzer 7: 102.281; Graesse 4: 281.
Franciscum Zampinum recognita. Parisiis in clauso Brunello ad insigne
Geminarum Cipparum 1527. No COL. Marc. 393.d.267.

SIGN: a-t8 g+= (52 leaves). 8 vo.

Before 1531
CONT: (s. a'v) Ioannes Ferrerius Pedemontanus authoris nomine ad Lectorem 42] Amat., tr. Ficino. Vienna: Hieronymus Vietor.
(4 elegaic couplets), (s. a“r-v) Franciscus Zampinus D. Francisco Medullae
consiliario regio salutem [Text 81]. (s. a“‘r-glvr) 77., tr. Ficino. (s. g‘vv) Fratris Platonis Divini ... dialogus adprime festivus et elegans de philosophia atque eius
Angeli Lucani in commendationem libelli ac eiusdem recognitionis authoris amatoribus, quern latinitate donavit Marsilius Ficinus. nuper seorsum pro
carmen (7 elegaic couplets). Preface dated “ Parisiis IIII Nonas Augusti 1527” . studiosis impressus. Viennae, per Hier. Vietorem, (n.d.). 4to.
Ph. Renouard, Inventaire chronologique 3: 365, no. 1300. Panzer 9: 59.339; Graesse 5: 321; Suppl. 1: LXIII. On Vietor (fl. 1510-1531)
see Wiens Buchdruckergeschichte, p. 3211.
Harvard UL Smyth 694.5*—Besangon, Bibl. Municipale.
1532
39bis] Phd., tr. Ficino, ed. Franciscus Zampinus. Paris: [Prigent Calvarin]. *43] Complete Works, tr. Ficino. Basel: Hieronymus Froben. Edited by Simon
Grynaeus.
Plato. Phaedo, vel De animi immortalitate. 8 vo.
TP: Omnia divini Platonis opera tralatione Marsilii Ficini, emendatione et ad
Ph. Renouard, Inventaire chronologique 3: 365, no. 1299; see no. 48, below. graecum codicem collatione Simonis Grynaei, nunc recens summa diligentia
Beaune (Cote-d’Or), Bibl. Municipale. repurgata. Basileae in officina Frobeniana anno MDXXXII. COL: Basileae
754 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 755

apucJ Hieronymum Frobenium et Nicolaum Episcopium anno MDXXXII CONT: (s. a'v) Badius’ preface to Bodetus, as in no. 32. Then Ficino’s Pro-
mense Augusto. oemium, Vita Platonis, Ad lectorem, and Tabula librorum, as in no. 5 (ss. a~r-a8r).
Then (s. a8v) Simon Grynaeus lectori salutem, as in no. 43. Then (ss. AA'r-
SIGN: a 8 a-z(> A-Z8 Aa-Zz8 AA-LL8 = (12) + 959 pp. Fol.
AA8v) an index to the dialogues. Then (pp. 1-775) the dialogues as in no. 5.
CONT: (f. a'v) Simon Grynaeus candido lectori salutem [Text 82], Rest as in (p. 775) A x. , tr. Agricola. (p. 780) Halcyon, tr. Dati, without preface.
no. 5.
BNPL, cc. 124-125; Renouard, Badius 3: 169-170; Renouard, Impnmeurs 2: 276,
Panzer 6 : 287.866; Graesse 5: 320; Brunet 4: 698; Colombina 6 : 18; BNC 138: no. 708; Suppl. 1: LXI.
848; BNPL, c. 14; Suppl. 1: LXI; Pennink 1819; NUC 461: 122; Adams 2;
P.1445; Bietenholz, p. 118. Angelica TT.20.22—Brera—Jerusalem Nat’l Libr.—Toronto UL.
BN Paris R.1116—Ambros. — Basel UB— Bergamo BC — Brera—Cambridge
UL—Chicago UL—Folger—Piacenza BC— Udine BC—Yale UL. *47] Def. and A x. , tr. Ficino. Paris: Michael Vascosanus.
TP: Alcinoi philosophi platonici de doctrina Platonis liber graece et latine.
*44] Def. and d r ., tr. Ficino. Basel: Michael Isengrinius. Speusippi Platonis discipuli liber de Platonis definitionibus. Xenocratis
TP: Alcinoi philosophi platonici De doctrina Platonis liber, Speusippus Platonis philosophi platonici liber de morte. Parisiis apud Michaelem Vascosanum ...
discipuli liber De Platonis definitionibus, Xenocratis philosophi platonici liber M DXXXIII. COL: Parisiis apud Michaelem Vascosanum, via ad divum
De morte. ... Basileae, 1532. COL: Basileae per Mich. Isengrinium mense Jacobum sub fontis signo, 1533.
Augusto. SIGN: A-F8G 3 = 101 pp. 8 vo.
SIGN: A-G8H 7 = 126 pp. 8 vo.
CONT: (p. 3; pp. 76-101) as in no. 44.
CONT: (p. 3) Ficino, preface to Cavalcanti [Text 75]. (pp. 94-107) Def., tr.
Ficino. (pp. 108-126) Ax. , tr. Ficino, with preface to Piero de’Medici [Text 76], PCCBI 2: 342; Adams 1: A .631.

Panzer 6 : 291.891; Graesse 1: 63; Brunet 1: 150; BNC 2: 24; GKPB 2: BNC Rome, 34.5. A. 13(3)—Bodl. Bywater J.2.23—Cambridge UL—
815.10412; Suppl. 1: LXX; STC-Germany, p. 17; BMC 3: 16; Adams 1: A .630; Casanatense.
PCCBI 2: 343.
BAV Ferraioli V.7937—Angel. — BL—Budapest BN—Paris BN—Zad&r,
Naucna Biblioteka 259. 1536
*48] Phd., tr. Ficino. Paris: Prigent Calvarin. Edited by Franciscus Zampinus.
1533 TP: Phaedo vel de animi immortalitate Platonis philosophorum dei, Marsilio
Ficino interprete, nuper per Franciscum Zampinum recognita. Parisiis apud
*45] Chrm., tr. Poliziano (fragment). Lyons: S. Gryphius. A new printing of no. Prigentium Calvarin, in clauso Brunello, ad insigne Geminarum Cvpparum,
40, with corrections and a new third volume. 1536. No COL.
TP: Angeli Politiani opera quorum primus [-tertius] hie tomus complectitur. ... SIGN: A-E8 F4 = 44 leaves. 8 vo.
Omnia iam recens a mendis repurgata, apud Sebastianum Gryphium,
Lugduni, 1533. COL: Excudebat Lugduni Sebastianus Gryphius, anno 1533. CONT: (f. lv) Ioannes Ferrerius Pedemontanus D. Francisco Medullae con-
8 vo. siliario regio salutem (dated “ Parisiis 15 Calendas Augusti 1527” ). (ff. 2r-44r)
Phd., tr. Ficino.
CONT: (vol. II, pp- 316-326) as in no. 12.
Panzer 8 : 201.2618; BNC 138.938; BNPL, c. 104; Suppl. 1: LXIII; Graesse 5:
Brunet 4: 780; BNC 140: 137; BMC 4: 500; NUC 464: 90. 321; NUC 461: 221.
BAV R. G. Neol. V.333— BL—Marc.—Paris BN.* Paris BN R .46999 with MS notes from a lecture.

*46] Complete Works, tr. Ficino, in the redaction of Grynaeus; A x. , tr.

Agricola; Halcyon, tr. Dati. Paris: Badius Ascensius. *49] A reprint of no. 39. Apud Prigentium Calvarin.
TP: Platonis opera tralatione Marsilii Ficini, emendatione et ad graecum Panzer 8 : 201.2617; Graesse 5: 321; BNC 138: 931; BNPL, c. 97; Suppl. 1:
codiccm collatione Simonis Grynaei, nunc recens summa diligentia repurgata. LXIV; NUC 461: 221.
1533. Vaenundantur Iodoco Badio et Ioanni Parvo. BN Paris R .47000—BN Paris Res. R.1803 with MS notes from a lecture—
SIGN: a8 AA8 a-zH&8 con8 rum8 A-Z8 = (24) -t- 780 pp. Fol. Bodl. Vet. E.l.f.100.
756 P A R T III
CATALOGS 757
1537 BAV Ferraioli IV.5299—Basel UB—BL—Bologna UB—Columbia UL (micro­
*50] A reprint of no. 45. Vol. I dated 1536; vols. 11-111 dated 1537. film)— Marc.
Panzer 7: 367.803; BNC 140: 138; BMC 4: 500; NUC 464: 91. 54] A reprint of no. 45.
BAY R. G. Neol. V.219—Angelica {00} .6.14-15. BNC 140: 137; NUC 464: 91.
BN Paris.
1538
*51] Halcyon, tr. Vincentius Obsopoeus. Frankfurt: Christian Egenolphus. ca. 1540
TP: Luciani Samosatensis opera quae quidem extant omnia e graeco sermone *55] Ti. 67E—68C only, tr. Ficino. Cologne?: n.pl.pr.d. Edited by Anthonius
in latinum, partirn iam olim diversis autoribus, partim nunc demum per Thvlesius.
Iacobum Micvllum quaecunque reliqua fuere translata ... Francofurti apud
Christianum Egenolphum. COL: Francofurti, Christianus Aegenolphus ex- TP: De coloribus Anthonii Thvlesii Cosentini libellus in gratiam elegantiae
cudebat mense Martio anno MDXXXVIII. Fol. latini sermonis studiosorum conscriptus, in quo multa-praeter aliorum opi-
nionem ex Timaeo Platonis de coloribus, Alarsilio Ficino interprete, ex Noc-
CONT: (1. 15r) Halcyon, sive de transformatione Vincentio Obsopoeo inter- tibus Atticis Auli Gellii de coloribus capitulum unum __Cum aliis quibusdam
prete. Argumenturn (by Jacobus Micvllus). (11. 15v-16r) Halcyon, tr. Ob­ eiusdem argumenti autoribus. [Followed bv two couplets of Longolius in
sopoeus. Greek], No COL.
Graesse 4: 280; BNC 101: 419-420; BMC Suppl. L. 1015. SIGN: A-D 4 D~ = 35 + [l] pp. 8 vo.

BL C . 109.i. 10—Basel UB—Marc. — Paris BN—Vicenza BC. C O N T: (pp. 25-26) Ex Timaeo Platonis de coloribus Marsilio Ficino interprete,
inc. Quod visum disgregat album appellatur, nigrum vero quod congregat—des.
Fulvi nigrique temperie color viridis nascitur.
1539
E. Stevenson, Inventano dei libn stampati Palatino-Vaticani 1 .2 (Nieuwkoop, 1966),
*52] A reprint of no. 43, with Agricola's version of the Ax. added at the end. p. 183, no. 2312a.
Graesse 5:320; BNC 138: 848; BNPL, c. 14; Suppl. 1: LXI; NUC 461: 122. BAV Pal. V.431 (1)—Berlin (East) SB—Budapest BN—Straengnaes, Domkvr-
kobibliotek.
BAY Barb. I.IV . 6 6 —Ambros. — Basel UB— Bergamo BC—Berlin (East) SB—
Bologna UB— Brno, Statni Knihovna—Duke UL—Jerusalem Nat’l Libr.—
Paris BN—Piacenza BC — Udine BC—Vicenza BC—Vienna ONB. Another 1542
Vatican copy (Barb. 13.cred.46) has MS notes of Torquato Tasso.
56] Ax., tr. Joachim Perion. Paris: Johannes Lodovicus Tiletanus.

*53] ,4*., tr. Agricola. Cologne: Ioannes Gvmnicus. TP: Platonis Axiochus aut de morte, Ioachimo Perionio Benedictino Cor-
moeriaceno interprete. Parisiis, apud Ioannem Lodoicum Tiletanum ex adverso
TP: Rodolphi Agricolae Phrisii Lucubrationes aliquot lectu dignissimae, in collegii Remensis, 1542. No COL.
hanc usque diem nusquam prius aeditae, ceteraque eiusdem viri plane divini
omnia, quae extare creduntur opuscula plusquam depravatissime ubique iam SIGN: a-e4 = (20 leaves).
olim excusa, nunc demum ad autographorum exemplarium fidem per Alardum Graesse 5: 320; STC-France, p. 355; NUC 461:139; BMC 191:240.
Aemstelredamum emendata et additis scholiis illustrata. ... Coloniae, apud
Ioannem Gvmnicum. (Printed as the second volume ol) Rodolphi Agricolae BL 525.k. 13(2) with MS notes from a lecture—UCLA.
Phrisii de inventione dialectica libri omnes ... Coloniae, Ioannes Gymnicus ex-
cudebat M DXXXIX. No COL. 321 pp. 4to. 1543
CONT: (p. 257) Alardus Aemstelredamus Sibrando Occoni s. d. (dated from *57] Ax., tr. Perion. Basel: Joannes Oporinus.
Zurich), prefatory letter to Aemstelredamus’ edition, (pp. 258-264) Ax., tr.
Agricola, with prefatory letter to Langius. (pp. 264-275) In Platonis Axiochum TP: Platonis Axiochus aut De morte, liber graece et latine, ut conferri ab utrius-
scholia (by Aemstelredamus), inc. Libellum Platonis] Dialogum hunc multo que linguae studiosis possit, Ioachimo Perionio Cormoeriaceno interprete, una
pulcherrimum permulti graecorum. cum eiusdem Ioachimi Perionii annotationibus longe doctissimis. Basileae.
[Issued separately as a pendent to] Aristotelis Topicorum libri octo ... Ioachimo
STC-Germany, p. 10; BMC 2:718; NUC 5: 262: Ind. Aur. 101: 764. Perionio ... interprete ..., una cum Axiocho Platonis eodem interprete. Basileae
758 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 759

ex officina Oporini 1543 mense Martio. COL: Basileae ex olhcina Ioannis

BAV Barb. J. IX. 1—Basel UB—Leiden UL—BL—Paris BN.
Oporino anno saiutis MDXLIII mense Martio.
SIGN: a-dHe4 = (36 leaves). 4to. 1544
CONT: (s. a2r) Reverendo in Christo patri Francisco Bohero episcopo *61] Ti. , tr. Ficino. Paris: Jacques Bogard.
Maclouiensi Joachimus Perionius Cormoeriacenus s.p.d. (dated “ IIII Nonas
TP: Platonis philosophorum omnium seculorum longe principis Timaeus vel De
Aprileis MDXLII Lutetiae Parisiorum mense Martio” ). (ss. a3v-b4v) Ax. , tr.
natura Marsilio Ficino Florentino interprete. Parisiis apud Iacobum Bogardum
Perion. (ss. b ’r-c'v) Ax. , Greek text. (ss. c4r-e 4r) Eiusdem Ioachimi Perionii in
sub insigni D. Christophori e regione gymnasii Cameracensium 1544. No COL.
eundem Platonis libellum observationes, inc. Cum hunc Platonis libellum.
SIGN: A-P4 Q 2 = 62 leaves. 4to.
BNC 138: 881; BNPL, c. 47; STC-Germany. p. 703; BMC 191: 240; NUC
461; 138. CONT: (ff. 2r-62r) Ti. , tr. Ficino.
BL 1385.b. 12 — BAY Barb. J . 11.77—Augsburg SB—Bologna UB—UNC- Graesse 5: 321; Suppl. 1: LXIV; STC-France, p. 355.
C’hapel Hill—Marc.
BL 525.k.21 — Berne 0 .5 0 with MS notes of Salamon Plepp—Piacenza BC.
*58] A reprint of no. 51.
*62] Ep. , tr. Ficino. Paris: Jacques Bogard.
BMC 145; 871; STC-Germany. p. 530; NUC 344: 357.
TP: Platonis Epistolarum duodecim liber Marsilio Ficino Florentino interprete.
BL 8461.1.28—Columbia UL. Parisiis apud Iacobum Bogardum ... 1544. No COL.
SIGN: A-F4 G 3 = 27 leaves. 4to.
*59] Spuria, tr. Sebastiano Corradi. Lyons: Gryphius.
CONT: Ep., tr. Ficino.
TP: Platonici dialogi sex nunc primum e graeco in latinum conversi Sebastiano
Corrado interprete. Lugduni apud Seb. Gryphium MDXLIII. No COL. Maittaire 3: 876.363; Graesse 5:317; Brunet 4: 702; BNC 138: 942-3; BNPL,
c. 109; Suppl. 1: LXIII; STC-France, p. 355; BMC 191: 242.
SIGN: A-I4 = 72 pp. 4to.
BL 525.k. 18(2)—Paris BN R.1520 with MS notes.
CONT: (p. 3) Sebastianus Corradus Sylvestro Mauroceno Ioannis filio s. p. d.
(dated “ III Calendas Septembris MDXLII Regio Lepidi” ). (p. 5) Just. (p. 12)
*63] Rep. l- ll only, tr. Ficino. Paris: Jacques Bogard.
Virt. (p. 19) Demod. (p. 31) Sis. (p. 39) Eryx. (p. 63) Dej.
TP: nXdxcovcx; PIoXiTeicuv rj trepi Sixalou Bi|3Xia l. Platonis De republica vel De
Assemani, p. 472; Graesse 5: 321; BNC 138: 870; BNPL, cc. 35-36; Baudrier
justo libri decern Marsilio Ficino Florentino interprete. Parisiis apud Iacobum
8 : 182; STC-France, p. 355.
Bogardum, 1544. No COL.
BAY Chigi IY.990—Bologna UL—BL—Paris BN—Piacenza BC.
In two parts. SIGN: a-94 i2 + A-H 4 = 34 + 32 pp. 4to.
*60] Virt. and Just. . tr. Conrad Gesner. Zurich: Christoph Froscher. CONT: (Part I) Rep. I-II only, Greek text. (Part II) Rep. /- / / only, tr. Ficino.
TP: Kepas apaXSeta.; ’Iojavvou zoo £xoj3atoo ’ExXoyou aTtoipSeypatcav. Ioannis Graesse 5: 318; Brunet 4: 703; BNPL, c. 161; Suppl. 1: LXIII; NUC 461: 195.
Stobaei sententiae ex thesauris graecorum delectae quarum autores circiter
Columbia UL, Gonzalez Lodge 1544. P69—Folger—Paris BN.
ducentos et quinquaginta citat et in sermones sive locos communes digestae
nunc primum a Conrado Gesnero doctore medico Tigurino in latinum ser-
ca. 1545
inonem traductae sic ut latina graecis e regione respondeant. ... Tiguri ex-
cudebat Christophorus Froscherus anno MDXLIII. No COL. *64] Ax., tr. Perion. Paris?: Thomas Richard? Cf. no. 92.
( 1 1 ) + 539 + (20) leaves. Fol. TP: PLATONIS / AXIOCHUS SIVE DE / MORTE, / Ioachimo Perionio
Benedictino Cormoeria-/-ceno interprete. No COL.
CONT: (f. 535r) An virtus doceri possit dialogus incerti authoris etsi vulgo
Platoni inscribitur. Argumentum dialogi. (f. 535r) Virt., tr. Gesner. (f. 536v) SIGN: a-b* = 8 leaves. 4to.
Dialogus de Iusto Platoni (also adscriptus, in quo docetur iustitiam esse scien­
CONT: (f. 2r) Perion, preface to Franc. Boherus, as in no. 57. (ff. 3r-8r) Ax. ,
dum et homines non sponte iniustos ac malos esse. Socrates et alter quidam non
tr. Perion.
espresso nomine colloquuntur. Then (f. 5.36x) Just.. tr. Gesner.
Graesse 6 : 500; BNC 138: 944; BNPL, c. 110; STC-Germany, p. 459; Adams BMC 191: 240.
2: S. 1872; NUC 570: 141. BL 525.k .13(3).
760 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 761

1545 1547
*65]y«.5T. tr. Gesner. Antwerp: Joannes Loeus. *69] Ti. , tr. Ficino. Valencia: Joannes Mey.
TP: Ioannis Stobaei sententiae ex thesauris graecoruni delectae quarum autores TP: Timaeus vel De natura Divini Platonis Marsilio Ficino interprete:
circiter ducentos et quinquaginta citat, et in sermones sive locos communes diligenter recognita. Valentiae apud Ioannem Mey Flandrum 1547. No COL.
digestae nunc primum a Conrado Gesnero doctore medico Tigurino in latinum
sermonem traductae. ... Excudebat Antverpiae Ioannes Loeus anno MDXLV. SIGN: A-G8 = 56 leaves. 8 vo.
No COL. Preface dated “ Calendas Aprilis MDXLV Antverpiae” . CONT: (f. lv) Ioannes Ferrerius Pedemontanus autoris nomine ad Lectorem
SIGN: a3 b-ca d+ A-Z8 Aa-Zz8 AA-BB8 CC+= (23) + 386 leaves. Fol. (as in no. 39). (f. 2r) Ad lectorem [Text 83], (f. 2v) Liminal verses, (ff. 3r-56r)
Ti., tr. Ficino.
CONT: (If. 383r-385v) Just. , tr. Gesner, with title as in no. 60.
Palau y Dulcet 228697; on the printer Mey see J. E. Serrano v Morales, D’c-
NUC 461: 144; 570: 141. cionano de las imprentas que han existido en Valencia (Valencia, 1898-99), p. 285. wiio
Vicenza BC, B. 14.4.30—Perugia BC — DLC—Yale UL. does not mention this edition.
Barcelona UB, B-4/5/5 with MS notes.

1546 1548

*6 6 ] A reprint of no. 45. Vol. I dated 1545; vols. II-III dated 1546. *70] Smp. , tr. Janus Cornarius. Basel: Oporinus.
BMC 4: 500; NUC 464: 91. TP: Iani Cornarii medici phvsici Zuiccauiensis De conviviorum veterum
graecorum et hoc tempore germanorum ritibus, moribus ac sermonibus, item
BAV Chigi V.1530—Bologna UB— Harvard UL (vol. I only)—Marc. (vol. I de amoris praestantia et de Platonis ac Xenophontis dissensione libellus. Item
only). Platonis philosophi Atheniensis Symposium eodem Iano Cornario interprete et
Xenophontis philosophi Atheniensis Symposium ab eodem latine conscriptum.
*67] A reprint of no. 52, with a new index at the end. Basileae. COL: Basileae ex officina Ioannis Oporini anno MDXLVIII mense
BNC 138: 849; Beauheux 2: 127; BNPL, c. 14; Suppi. 1: LXI; STC-Germany, Septembri.
p. 702; BMC 191: 182; NUC 461: 122; Adams 2: P.1446; STC-Scotland, p. SIGN: a-m8 n3 = 166 pp. 8 vo.
289.
CONT: (pp. 3-47) Iani Cornarii ... libellus ad ornatissimum uirum D.
Columbia UL Gonzalez Lodge—Basel UB—Berlin (East) SB—Bologna UB— Osualdum Lasarium Zuiccauiensem consulem, inc. Proximis nostris stultorum
Brera—Bucharest Bibl. Centr. de Stat—Edinburgh, Nat’l Libr.—Louvain feriis (dated ‘‘Francofordiae in ipsis nundinis XVIII die Aprilis anno Christi
Univ. Cath.—Madrid BN—Piacenza BC—Toronto UL—Udine BC—Vicenza M DXLVI” ). (pp. 49-146) Smp. , tr. Cornarius.
BC.*
BNPL, c. 169; BMC 191: 231; NUC 461: 214; Durling no. 1035.
BL 527.a.3—Barcelona UB—Basel UB—Budapest BN—Harvard UL—Padua
*6 8 ] Halcyon, tr. Dati. Paris: Vascosanus. Edited by Jacobus Micvllus. Sem. Libr. — Bethesda, Md., Nat’l Libr. Medicine.
TP: Luciani Samosatensis opera quae quidem extant omnia a graeco sermone
in latinum conversa, nunc postremum multo diligentius et melius quam ante ad *71] Complete Works, tr. Ficino, in the redaction of Grvnaeus. Ax., tr.
graecum exemplar correcta et emendata. Parisiis ex officina Michaelis Agricola. Lvons: Beringi Fratres for Antoine Vincente.
Vascosani MDXLVI. COL: Imprimebat Michael Vascosanus anno MDXLVI
mense Januario. TP: Omnia divini Platonis opera tralatione Marsilii Ficini, emendatione et ad
graecum codicem collatione Simonis Grynaei summa diligentia repurgata. ...
SIGN: a-y6 88 A-Z8 Aa-Zz8 Aaa8 Bbb3 = (26) + 382 leaves. Lugduni apud Antonium Vincentium MDXLVIII. COL: Lugduni excudebant
CONT: (f. 17v) Alcyon sive De transformatione Augustino Datho Senensi in- Godefridus et Marcellus Beringi fratres MDXLVIII.
terprete. Argumentum (by Micyllus, as in no. 51). (ff. 17v-18v) Halcyon, tr. SIGN: a-p6 y8 a-z6 A-Z6 Aa-Hhb = (40) + 646 pp. Fol.
Dati.
CONT: As in no. 67, but with index after the front matter instead of at the end.
BNC 101: 420; 35: 1147; NUC 344: 357.
Graesse 5: 320; Brunet Suppi. 2: 251: BNC 138: 849; Baudrier 3: 48; BNPL.
BN Paris Z.553— Duke UL—Marc.—Vicenza BC—Yale UL. c. 14; Suppi. 1: LXII; NUC 461: 122.
762 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 763

Florence BNC II.5.150— Barcelona UB— Bergamo BC—Berlin (East) SB— Graesse 6 : 500; BNC 138: 944; BNPL, c. 110; STC-Germany, p. 459; NUC
Brera—Columbia UL—Harvard UL—Laur. Acq. e Doni 706 with MS notes 570: 141; Adams 2: S.1873.
of Franciscus Verinus Secundus—Madrid BN — Marc. — Piacenza BC —
BAV Barb. J. IX .2—Basel UB—Marc.
Vicenza BC—Vienna ONB.

72] .4*., tr. Perion. Paris: Christian Wechel. *75] Halcyon, tr. Dati. Lyons: Ioannes Frellonius.

TP: Platonis Axiochus aut De morte, Joachimo Perionio ... interprete. Eiusdem TP: Luciani Samosatensis opera quae quidem extant omnia e graeco sermone
Perionii in eundem libellum observationes. Parisiis apud C. Wechelum. 4to. 32 in latinum, partim iam olim diversis autoribus, partim nunc per Iacobum
pp. Micyllum translata. Cum argumentis et annotationibus eiusdem passim adiec-
tis. Lugduni apud Ioannem Frellonium MDXLIX.
Brunet 4: 702; BNPL, cc. 145-146.
SIGN: a -[)8 y 10 a-z8 A-E8 = (26 leaves) + 894 cols. Fol.
Paris Mazarine Res. 1312(2).
CONT: (cc. 43-46) as in no. 68.

1549 Graesse 4: 280; BNC 101: 414; BMC 43: 1052; 145: 871; STC-France, p. 290;
NUC 344: 357.
*73] Ale. 1-2, Hipparch.. A mat., tr. Cornarius. Basel: Froben and Episcopius.
BL 721.m.4—Paris BN.
TP: Platonis Atheniensis philosophi summi dialogi 1III, quartus uidelicet de
novetn quaternitatibus quaternio Iano Cornario ... interprete. His accesserunt *76] Ep., tr. Pierre de la Ramee. Paris: Matthew David.
iabularum aliquot poeticarum allegoriae ex Psello, eodem Cornario interprete
et ipsius Cornarii Venator Actaeon. Praemissa est his omnibus Iani Cornarii TP: Platonis epistolae a Petro Ramo latinae factae et dialecticis rerum summis
praeiatio de recto rerum iudicio longe gravissima. MDXLIX. COL: Basileae breviter expositae ad Carolum Lotharingum Cardinalem Guisianum. Parisiis
apud Frobenium et Episcopium mense Augusto MDXLIX. ex typographia Matthaei Davidis via Amygdalina e regione Collegii Rhemensis
ad veritatis insigne 1549. No COL.
SIGN: a-18 m~ = 180 pp. 8 vo.
SIGN: a-Is = 96 pp. 4to.
CONT: (pp. 3-24) Ad imaginibus et eloquentia consiliisque ac armis
clarissimum uirum D. Christophorum a Carlebitz illustrissimi principis CONT: (pp. 3-4) Ramus, Ad Carolum Lotharingum Cardinalem. (pp. 5-96)
Mauricii Saxoniae ducis ac S. R. Imperii Electoris etc. consiliarium. Iani Cor­ Ep. I-XIII, tr. Ramus, with arguments before and brief annotations after each
narii medici phvsici Zuiccauiensis de recto rerum iudicio praefatio quarto letter.
Platonis dialogorum quaternioni praemissa, inc. Magna quidem res est, BNC 138: 944; BNPL, c. 110; NUC 461: 146; Adams 2: P.1460.
Christophore Carolobiti, philosophia (dated “ Zuiccauii Boethlandiae Calend.
Septembr. anno Christi M DXLVII” ). (p. 25) Ale. 1, tr. Cornarius. (p. 95)Alc. BN Paris Res. Z.672—Brera—Cambridge UL—Harvard UL—Yale UL.
2, tr. Cornarius. (p. 123) Hipparch., tr. Cornarius. (pp. 139-155) Amat., tr. Cor­
narius. *77] Def. and Ax., tr. Ficino. Paris: Vascosanus.
BNC 138: 870-871; BNPL, c. 36. TP: Alcinoi philosophi platonici De doctrina Platonis liber graece et latine.
Speusippi Platonis discipuli De Platonis definitionibus. Xenocratis philosophi
Angel. + .1.36—Bucharest Bibl. Centr. de Stat—Paris BN—Philadelphia, platonici liber De morte. Parisiis apud Vascosanum ... MDXLIX. No COL.
Univ. of Pennsylvania Libr.—Vienna ONB.
SIGN: a-f6 g6 = 55 leaves. 16mo.
*74] Virt. and Just., tr. Gesner. Basel: Oporinus. CONT: (f. 2r; ff. 41r-48v) as in no. 44.
TP: Kepa<; dpaXBeia? ’Icoavvou xou Sxopaiou exXoyat d7to90£y[xd-caiv xat 6 tco0T|xcov PCCBI 2: 342.
Ioannis Stobaei sententiae ex thesauris graecorum delectae quorum auctores cir-
citer ducentos et quinquaginta citat et in sermones sive locos communes digestae Rome BNC 71.2. C .34—Basel UB—Naples BN.
a Conrado Gesnero ... in latinum serrnonem traductae sic ut latina graecis e
regione respondeant ... Basileae. COL: Basileae ex officina Ioannis Oporini 1550
sumptibus Christophori Froscheri anno salutis humanae MDXLIX mense
Augusto. *78] A reprint of no. 45.
SIGN: or (T A-Zh Aa-Zz'> AA-JJ*1 KK4 = (10) + 630 + (16) pp. Fol. BNC 140: 138; NUC 464.92
CONT: (pp. 626-629) as in no. 60. Rome BNC 7.10. A.6-7—Angel. — Harvard UL (vol. I only).
764 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 765

*79] Complete Works, tr. Ficino, in the redaction of Grvnaeus. Spuria, tr *83] 77., tr. Ficino. Paris: Thomas Richard.
Sebastiano Corradi. Ax., tr. Agricola. Lyons: Jean des Tournes.
TP: Divini Platonis Timaeus aut de natura liber a Marsilio Ficino latinitate
TP 1 : Divini Platonis operum a Marsilio Ficino tralatorum tomus primus donatus. Parisiis apud Thomam Richardum sub bibliis aureis e regione collegii
[-quintus], ... omnia emendatione et ad graecum codicem collatione Simonis Remensis 1551. No COL.
Grynaei, summa diligentia repurgata. Lugduni apud Ioannem Tornaesium
M DXXXXX. TP 2 (vol. 5, after p. 863): Platonici dialogi sex nunc primum SIGN: A-H 4 = 32 leaves. 4to.
e graeco in latinum conversi Sebastiano Corrado interprete. Lugduni apud CONT: 77., tr. Ficino.
Ioannem Tornaesium M DX X X X X . No COL.
BNC 138: 931; BNPL, c. 97; Suppl. 1: LXIV.
SIGN: (vol. 1 ) a-z8 A-Z8 aab + (vol. 2) a-z8 A-S8 Tb + (vol. 3) a-z8 A-L8
M 6 + (vol. 4) a-z8 A-Z8 aa-rrB ss6 + (vol. 5) a-z8 A-Z8 aa-hh8 and a-e8 BN Pans Res. R.729.
f3 = 647 + 6 6 8 + 554 + 1017 + 863 and 85 pp. 16mo.
CONT: (vols. 1-4; vol. 5, pp. 1-863) as in no. 67 but with the dialogues in their
1552
Thrasvllan tetralogies rather than in the Ficinian order, (vol. 5, second part, pp.
1-85) as in no. 59. + 84] Sph. , tr. Petreius Tiara. Louvain: Reynerus Velpius for Martinus
Graesse 5: 320; Brunet 4: 698 and Suppl. 2: 251; BNC 138: 849; BNPL, c. 14; Rotarius.
Cartier, Tournes 1: 310-312, no. 179; Suppl. 1 : LXII; STC-France, p. 353; BMC TP: Platonis Sophistes sive de eo quod vere esse dicitur Petreio Tiara Frisio in­
191: 182; NUC 461: 122. terprete ad clarissimum virum d. D. Viglium Zuichemum summi consilii
Caesarii Maiestatis praesidem. Lovanii apud Martinum Rotarium anno
BNC Florence, Magi. Leg. 32—Ambros. — Berlin (East) SB—Bologna UB—
MDLII .... COL: Admissum per M. N. Petrum Curtium pastorem divi Petri
Harvard UL—Canberra, Nat’l Libr. of Australia—Rice. — BL, G. 16721-25
Lovaniensis die II Januarii anno MDLII stylo Romano. Lovanii tvpis Revneri
with MS notes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau—Paris BN—Piacenza BC —
Vallicelliana—BAY—Marc. —Vienna ONB. Velpii.
SIGN: A-G8 H:i = 59 leaves. 4to.

*80] A reprint of no. 77. CONT: (ff. 2r-4r) Clarissimo prudentissimoque et omni literarum ac virtutum
genere ornatissimo d. D. Viglio Zuichemo Frisio supremi consilii Caesarii
John Rylands 1: 30; GKPB 2: 814.10391; PCCBI 2: 342. Maiestatis praesidi Petreius Tiara Frisius s. d., inc. Dispicienti mihi, vir
humanissime, multumque et diu cogitanti. (ff. 5r-59r) Sph. , tr. Tiara.
BAV R.G. Class. V.1809—Angel. X X . 8 . 1 1 —Ambros.
BNPL, c. 168; see also no. (200) below.
1551
Munich UB, A.gr.1590—Paris, Ecole Norm. Sup. 12mo.L.G.21.
*81] Virt. and Just., tr. Gesner. Antwerp: Joannes Loeus.
TP: Ioannis Stobaei sententiae ex thesauris graecorum delectae, ... a Conrado
*85] Virt. and Just., tr. Gesner. Paris: Martin Le Jeune for Charles Perier.
Gesnero ... traductae — Antverpiae ex officina Joannis Loeus anno 1551. No
COL. A new edition of no. 65. TP: Ioannis Stobaei sententiae ex thesauris graecorum collectae, ... per Con-
radum Gesnerum ... latinitate donatae ... Parisiis apud Carolum Perier ...
SIGN: A-Z8 Aa-Zz8 AA-RR 8 SS6 = (512 leaves). 8 vo.
1552. COL: Parisiis excudebat Martinus Iuuenis Calendas Maii anno 1552.
CONT: (pp. 467-472) as in no. 60.
SIGN: aa-ff8 gg 12 a-z8 A-Z8 Aa-Nn 8 = (120) + 1041 pp. 16mo.
STC-Holland, p. 109.
CONT: (pp. 1023-1038) as in no. 60.
BL 995.a.22—Berlin (East) SB.
STC-France, p. 245; NUC 570: 141; Adams 2: S.1874.
BL 996.d .7—Cambridge UL—Vicenza BC.
*82] A reprint of no. 67.
Graesse 5: 320; Suppl. 1: LXII; BMC 191: 182; NUC 461: 122; STC-G erm any.
*8 6 ] A reprint of no. 76, despite the title page, which reads “ Secunda aeditio” .
p. 702; Adams 2: P.1447.
BL C.47.k.7— Basel UB—Berlin (East) SB— Harvard UL—Rice. — Madrid BNPL, c. 182; STC-France, p. 355.
BN—Univ. of Pennsylvania—Vallicelliana—BAV Barb. J.IV.34. — Marc. BAV R. G. Class. IV. 1530(9)—Leiden UL—BL—Marc.—Vienna ONB.
 766 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 767

1553 *90] Phd. , tr. Ficino. Paris: Guillaume Morel for Adrien Turnebe.
+ 87] Ax., tr. Joannes Dugo Philonius. Basel: Oporinus. Edited by Kaspar TP: nXaxtovoi; @ai8cov r\ mpi Platonis Phaedo sive De animo. Parisiis
Brusch. MDLIII apud Adr. Turnebum typographum regium. COL: Parisiis excudebat
TP: Ioannis Dugonis Philonii Tilianus vel De scientia bene moriendi liber. Item Guilelmus Moreiius. MDLIIII.
Xenocratis philosophi platonici liber De contemnenda morte eodem Philonio in- SIGN: (pt. 1, in Greek) A-K 4 and (pt. 2, in Latin) A-N 4 = 72 and 103 pp. 4to.
terprete. ... Additum est eiusdem authoris breve scriptum De regimine
sanitatis. Basileae per Ioannem Oporinum. CONT: (pt. 2, pp. 1-103) Phd., tr. Ficino.
Maittaire 3: 753.398; Graesse 5: 320; BNC 138: 935; BNPL, c. 178; Suppl. 1:
CONT: (p. 140) Reverendo in Christo patri ac domino Ioanni Philoneico Ab-
LXIII; STC-France, p. 354; BMC 191: 214; Adams 2: P.1462.
bati in Alderspach apud Bavaros Ioannes Philonius s. d. (dated “ Ex Eremo
nostra YValserskirchensi Idibus Novembr. anno 1549’’). (pp. 141-154) Ax. , tr. BL 714.g. 1(5-6)—Paris BN Res. 1519—Budapest BN—Cambridge UL.
Dugo.
NUC 150: 624; Durlings no. 1301.
1555
Bethesda. Md., Nat’l Libr. of Medicine WZ 240/D867t/1553—Basel UL—
Chicago UL; *91] Vift. and Just., tr. Gesner. Lyon: Grvphius.
TP: Ioannis Stobaei sententiae ex thesauris graecorum delectae, ... a Conrado
Gesnero .. in latinum sermonem traductae. Apud Sebastianum Gryphium
*8 8 ] Chrm. , tr. Poliziano (fragment). Basel: Nicolaus Episcopius.
Lugduni 1555. In 2 vols.: (vol. 1) 793 + (vol. 2) 550 and (27) pp. 16mo.
TP: Angeli Politiani opera quae quidem extitere hactenus omnia, longe emen-
CONT: (vol. 2, pp. 534-548) as in no. 60.
datius quam usquam antehac expressa __ Basileae apud Nicolaum
Episcopium, MDLIII. Brunet Suppl. 1: 696; NUC 570: 141.
SIGN: *4 A-Z8 a-z'’ Aa-KlC LI8 = 6 8 8 pp. Fol. BAV Barb. J. 1.86-87—Basel UB—Vienna ONB.
CONT: (pp. 446-450) as in no. 12.
Graesse 5:389; Brunet 4: 780; BNC 140: 138; BNC 4: 500; NUC 464: 90. *92] A reprint of no. 64.
TP: PLATONIS / AXIOCHVS, SIVE DE / MORTE. / Ioachimo Perionio
BL 524.i. 18—Basel UB—Harvard UL—Paris BN—Marc.
Benedictino Cormoeria-/-ceno interprete. / PARISIIS,/ Apud Thomam Richar-
dum, sub Bibliis aureis, / e regione collegii Remensis / 1555. No COL.
1554 SIGN: a-b4 = 8 leaves.
*89] 77., tr. Ficino. Basel: Oporinus. CONT: As in no. 64.
TP: Sebastiani Foxii Morzilli Hispalensis in Platonis Timaeum commentarii ad Naples BN, VIII. G .99 (3) with MS notes from a lecture.
illustrissimum ac reverendissimum D. Franciscum Bovadillam Mendozam Car-
dinalem et Episcopum Burgensem. ... Basileae per Ioannem Oporinum. COL:
Basileae ex officina Ioannis Oporini anno salutis humanae MDLIIII mense 1556
Augusto.
*93] Phd., tr. Ficino. Basel: Oporinus.
SIGN: a-z4 A-L4 = (8 pp.) + 497 cols. +(11 pp.) Fol.
TP: In Platonis dialogum qui Phaedo seu De animorum immortalitate in-
CONT: (f. a~r) Illustrissimo et reverendissimo d. D. Francisco Bovadillae scribitur Sebastiani Foxii Morzilli Hispalensis commentarii ... Basileae per
Mendozae ... Sebastianus Foxius Morzillus Hispalensis s. p. d., inc. Ea fuit Ioannem Oporinum. COL: Basileae ex officina Ioannis Oporini anno salutis
semper meorum studiorum ratio, (c. 1) Sebastiani Foxii Morzilli Prolegomena, humanae MDLVI mense Martio.
(c. 16) 77., tr. Ficino, with a running commentary by Fox Morzillo.
SIGN: a-14 = (9 pp.)+ 10-159 cols. Fol.
BNC 138: 236; BNPL, cc. 97-98; Legrand no. 164; Palau y Dulcet 228698;
S l’C-Scodand, p. 290; Adams 2: P.1474; Cat. of the Coll, of Autographs Formed by CONT: (pp. 3-7) Sebastiani Foxii Morzilli Hispalensis in suos in Phaedonem
Platonis commentarios ad Gon^alium Peresium Philippi Angliae et Neapolis
F. f. Dreer (Philadelphia, 1890-93), 2; 154.
regis Hispaniaeque principis secretarium et consiliarium praefatio, inc. Iam
BL 5247.18— Basel UB—Bologna UB— Padua Sem. — Philadelphia Hist. Soc. pene a Platonis et Aristotelis ac ceterorum philosophorum. (pp. 8-10) Fox Mor­
Dreer Coll. s. n., with MS note of Torquato Tasso—Vienna ONB. zillo, Argumentum in Platonis Phaedonem, inc. Phaedo ut est autor Diogenes
 768 P A R T III CATALOGS 769

Laertius, (cc. 10-159) Phd., tr. Ficino, with a running commentary by Fox 1557
Morzillo.
*96] Complete Works, tr. Ficino, in the redaction of Grynaeus and of the
BNC 138: 938; Legrand no. 175; BNPL, c. 104; STC-Scotland, p. 290; Adams Anonymus Lugdunensis. Ax., tr. Agricola. Spuria, tr. Corradi. Part of the 77.,
2: P.1464. tr. Cicero. Ep. XIII, tr. Anonymus Lugdunensis. Lyons: Antoine Vincente.
TP: Divini Platonis opera omnia Marsilio Ficino interprete. Nova editio
BAV R. G. Class. II 149—Bergamo UB—Bologna UB—Cambridge UL— adhibita graeci codicis collatione a duobus doctissimis viris castigata cuius colla-
Edinburgh Nat’l Libr.—Paris BN. tionis ratio ex epistola operi praefixa facile constabit. His accesserunt sex
Platonis dialogi nuper a Sebastiano Conrado [.nc] tralati, neque umquam adhuc
*94] Rep., tr. Ficino. Basel: Oporinus. in hoc volumine recepti. Lugduni apud Antonium Vincentium MDLVII.
COL: Excudebat Joannes Marcorelius.
TP: Sebastiani Foxii Morzilli Hispalensis commentatio in decern Platonis libros SIGN: *8 a-zti A-Z6 Aa-Ll6 Mm 8 = (16) + 667 +(23) pp. Fol.
De republica. Ad amplissimum virum D. Antonium Perenotum Attrebatensium
episcopum regiumque supremum consiliarium ... Basileae apud Ioannem CONT: (s. *2r) Antonius Vincentius lectoribus salutem [Text 84]. Then (s.
Oporinum. COL: Basileae ex officina Ioannis Oporini anno salutis humanae *4v) contents as in no. 43. Then (p. 643) Plato Dionvsio Syracusarum tvranno
MDLVI mense Septembri. bene agere. Notatur in graeco tamquam adulterina nec conversa est a Marsilio
Ficino, sed ab eo qui huius fuit novae amor editionis (Ep. XIII), tr. Anon.
SIGN: a6 A-Z+ Aa-Cc4 Dd6 = (12 pp.) + 416 cols. + (12 pp.). Fol. Lugdunensis. (p. 645) Ax., tr. Agricola. (p. 648) Spuria, tr. Corradi, as in no.
59. (pp. 663-667) Particula Timaei Platonis a Marco Tullio conversa,
CONT: (ss. a-r-a3r) Sebastiani Foxii Morzilli ... in commentationem in X respondens iis locis quos in margine notavimus.
Platonis libros De republica ad Antonium Perenotum ... praefatio, inc. Duae
sunt Reipublicae constituendae causae, (s. a3v) Sebastianus Foxius Morzillus Graesse 5:320; Baudrier 10: 150; Suppi. 1: LXII; NUC 461: 122; above, p. 479 f.
loanni Oporino salutem, inc. Quod a me alias non semel per litteras petiisti. (f. Rome BNC 14.11.R.8—Bergamo BC—Brera—Bryn Mawr UL—Louvain
a6r) Fox Morzillo, Argumentum in libros decern Platonis De republica, inc. Univ. Cath. — Madrid BN—Piacenza BC —Marc.
Cum earn Plato velit rempublicam describere. (cc. 1-416) Rep., tr. Ficino, with
each book followed by Fox Morzillo’s annotations. + 97] Ax. , tr. Cencio de’Rustici. Paris: Guillaume Morel.
Graesse 5: 321; BNC 138: 917; Palau y Dulcet 228704; Suppi. 1: LXIII; STC- TP: Dialogus de morte contemnendus traductus in latinum per Cincen (sic)
Germany, p. 703; STC-Scotland, p. 290; Adams 2: P.1466. Romanum. Parisiis 1557. COL: Parisiis MDLVII excudebat Guilelmus
Morelius in graecis typographus regius.
BAV R. G. Class. 11.149—Basel UB—Bergamo BC—Edinburgh, Nat’l Libr.
—BL—Vienna ONB. SIGN: A6 = 12 pp. 4to.
CONT: (pp. 1-12) Ax., tr. Cencio de’ Rustici.
*95] Complete Works, tr. Ficino, in the redaction of Grynaeus. A x., tr. NUC 461: 139; see vol. 1, p. 82n. and Cat. A, no. 109.
Agricola. Venice: Giovanni M aria Bonelli. A copy of no. 71 with a new index.
Madison, Wise., Univ. of Wisconsin Library.
TP: Omnia divini Platonis opera tralatione Marsilii Ficini emendatione et ad
graecum codicem collatione Simonis Grynaei summa diligentia repurgata ... *98] Virt. and Just., tr. Gesner. Paris: Charles Perier.
quae omnia recenti hac nostra editione quam potuit diligentissime expolita sunt TP: Ioannis Stobaei sententiae ex thesauris graecorum delectae, ... a Conrado
atque elaborata. Venetiis apud Ioannem M ariam Bonellum MDLVI. COL. Gesnero ... in latinum sermonem traductae. Tomus primus [-secundus],
Venetiis apud Ioannem M ariam Bonellum MDLVI. Parisiis apud Carolum Perier ... 1557. No COL. 2 vols: (vol. 1) 766 and (36)
SIGN: a-T6 88 a-z6 A-Z6 Aa-Hh6 = (52) + 646 pp. Fol. pp. +(vol. 2) 518 and (15) pp.
CONT: (vol. 2, pp. 503-516) as in no. 60.
CONT: As in no 71, with a new index on ss. ot4r-88v.
Brunet Suppi. 1: 696; STC-France, p. 245; Adams 2: S.1876.
Graesse 5: 320; STC-Italy 2: 606; NUC 461: 122.
BAV Barb J. 1.88—Berlin (East) SB—Cambridge UL; BL.
Rome BNC 14.22. F. 11—Ambros.—Augsburg SB—Bergamo BC—Berlin
(East) SB—Bologna UB—Brera— Brown U L—Chapel Hill UNC — BL— 1558
UCLA—Louvain Univ. Cath. with a few MS notes—Marc. — Padua Sem.
Univ. of Penna. L ibr.—Piacenza BC—Tokyo U L—Uppsala UB—Vicenza BC. *99] Min., tr. Ficino. Paris: Guillaume Morel.
770 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 771

TP: Platonis Minos vcl De lege Marsilio Ficino interprete. Parisiis MDLVIII. BAV R. G. Class. 11.67—Basel UB—Leiden UL—Nuernberg Landeskir-
Apud Guil. Morelium in graecis typographum regium. No COL. chliches Archiv—Vallicelliana.
SIGN: In two parts: (pt. I, Latin) A 4 + (pt. 2, Greek) A 4 B2 = 8 + 11 pp. 4to.
ca. 1560
CONT: (pt. 1, p. 2) Ficino, argument to the Min. (p. 3-8) Min., tr. Ficino.
*103] Ap., tr. Ficino, Paris: Guillaume Morel? Possibly a fragment of no. 106.
Maittaire 3: 707; Graesse 5:318; Brunet 4: 700; STC-France, p. 355; Suppl. 1:
LXIII. TP missing in Basel copy. No COL.
BL 525.k .19(1). SIGN: A-G 4 H 3 = 38 pp. 4to.
CONT: Platonis Apologia Marsilio Ficino interprete.
*100] Thg., tr. Ficino. Paris: Guillaume Morel.
Basel UB B.c.V.203, nr. 2, bound together with a printed Greek text of the
TP: nXd-rcovo^ ©eayrji; fj Flepi aocpiap. Platonis Theages sive De sapientia. Parisiis same dialogue, undated, containing a partial interlinear Latin translation in
MDLVIII. Apud Guil. Morelium in graecis typographum regium. No COL. MS, apparently from a lecture.
SIGN: In two parts: (pt. 1, Latin) A-B4 + (pt. 2, Greek) A-B4 = 15 + 16 pp. 4to.
CONT: (pt. 1) Thg., tr. Ficino. 1560

Graesse 5:321; STC-France, p. 355. *104] Ax., tr. Agricola. Paris: Guillaume Morel.

BL 525.k .17. TP: Platonis Axiochus De morte contemnenda, Rodolpho Agricola interprete.
Parisiis MDLX apud Guilelmum Morelium in graecis typographum regium.
No COL.
+ 101] Ale. 2 and Ax., tr. Joannes Sambucus. Vienna: Michael Zimmerman.
SIGN: A 4 = 8 pp. 4to.
TP: Dialogi duo Platonis, Alcibiades Secundus et Axiochus. Interprete Ioanne
Sambuco Pannonio Tirnauiense. V'iennae Austriae Michael Zimmerman ex- Contents as in no. 3.
cudebat. MDLVIII. Bodl. Grabe MS 15.
SIGN: A-F4 = (24 leaves.) 4to.
*105] Ale. 1, tr. Ficino. Paris: Thomas Richard.
CONT: (s. A"r) Georgio Drascovithio Episcopo Quinqueecclesiensi, Prae-
posito Iazouiensi et Posoniensi, Consiliario regio, etc. Ioannes Sambucus, inc. TP: Platonis Alcibiades primus vel De natura hominis, Marsilio Ficino inter­
Ante annos sex Lutetiae cum degerem (dated ‘‘Octauo Calend. Decembris a. prete. Parisiis ex typographia Thomae Richardi ... 1560. No COL.
D. MDLVIII” ). Then (s. A'"r) Ale. 2, tr. Sambucus. (s. Dmr) Ax., tr. Sam­ SIGN: A-E4 F3 = 23 leaves. 4to.
bucus. (s. F"'r) Liminal verses, inc. Qua careo dudum, Germania, mitto
salutem. CONT: (pp. 1-46) Ale. 1, tr. Ficino, with his argument.
Graesse 5: 321; Denis, Wiens Buchdruckergeschichte, p. 554. STC-France, p. 355; Suppl. 1: LXIII.
Vienna ONB 40.E.30—Zagreb BN-UL. BL 8461.bb.46.

*106] Euthphr., Amat., Hipparch., tr. Ficino. Paris: Guillaume Morel.

1559 TP: nXdxcovo<; SiaX oyot. Platonis Dialogi. Parisiis MDLX apud Guilelmum
*102] Virt. and Just., tr. Gesner. Zurich: Christoph Froscher. Morelium in graecis typographum regium. No COLS.
TP: Kepa? dp.aX0oua<; ’Icaavvou xou ExoPat'ou exXoyat dra)9 0 eyp.dxa>v xai U7to0rjxa)v. SIGN: In seven parts: (pt. 1) A-B4 C2 + (pt. 2) A-B4 C 2 + (pt. 3) A 5 + (pt. 4)
Ioannis Stobaei sententiae ex thesauris graecorum delectae ... a Conrado C6 + (pt. 5) A 4 + (pt. 6 ) aa5 + (pt. 7) A-F6 = 20 + 20 + 10 + 12 + 8 + 10 + 24 pp.
Gesnero ... in latinum traductae, sicut latina graecis e regione respondeant ... 4to.
Tertia editione. COL: Tiguri apud Christophorum Froscherum anno 1559
CONT: (pt. 1 ) Euthphr., in Greek, (pt. 2) Euthphr., tr. Ficino. (pt. 3) Amat., in
mense Augusto. (14) + 632 + (29) pp. Fol.
Greek, (pt. 4) Amat., tr. Ficino. (pt. 5) Hipparch., in Greek, (pt. 6 ) Hipparch.,
CONT: (pp. 628-631) as in no. 60. tr. Ficino. (pt. 7) Lg. II, Greek only.
BNC 138: 944; John Rylands 3: 1742; BNPL, c. 110; Adams 2: S.1878; NUC Maittaire 3: 717; Hoffmann 3: 124; Graesse 5: 315; STC-France, pp. 354, 355;
570: 141; STC-Germany, p. 459. BMC 191: 202, 244; NUC 461: 160.
772 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 773

BL 714.g. 1(1)—525.k. 17(2,5)—Yale Gnc 60/nj 565b—Uppsala UB. BL 8034—Aachen Oeffl. Bibb — Basel UB—Bergamo BC — Berlin (East) SB—
Brera—Canberra, Nat’l Libr. Australia—Chicago UB—Harvard UL—Leiden
+ 107] Thg. , tr. Ficino. Paris: Thomas Richard. UL—Louvain Univ. Cath. — Lueneburg Ratsbuecherei—Madrid BN—Yale
UL—Columbia UL—Stralsund SB—Toronto UL—BAY.
TP: Platonis Theages vel De sapientia Marsilio Ficino interprete. Parisiis ex
tvpographia Thomae Richardi ... 1560. No COL.
SIGN: A-B4 = 8 leaves. 4to. 1563
CONT: (f. lv-8v) Thg., tr. Ficino, with his argument. + 110] Amat. , tr. Jacques Bourle. Paris: Thomas Richard.
NUC 461: 139, 217. TP: Platonis dialogus De philosophia vel Amatores, Iacobo Burlaeo Belvacensi
interprete et scholiaste. Parisiis ex tvpographia Thomae Richardi ... 1563. No
Madison, Wise., Univ. of Wisconsin Libr. COL.
SIGN: A-D4 = 15 + (1) leaves. 4to.
1561 CONT: (f. lv) lac. Burlaeus amatoribus philosophiae, inc. Philosophia tanto
*108] Def. and Tv.. tr. Ficino. Basel: Heinrich Petri. amore digna. (f. 2r) Argumentum per lac. Burlaeum. inc. In hoc dialogo
definitio sive descriptio. (f. 2r) Amat., tr. Burlaeus. (f. 8r) Scholia ... authore
TP: Marsilii Ficini Florentini insignis philosophi platonici medici atque theologi lac. Burlaeo, inc. Inscriptio duplex sit in reliquis fere Platonis dialogis.
clarissimi opera et quae hactenus extitere et quae in lucem nunc primum pro-
diere omnia. ... Basileae anno MDLXI. COL: Basileae per Henricum Petri Graesse 5: 321; BNPL, cc. 150-151.
mense Martio anno MDLXI. Fob, 2 vols. Paris, Bibb Mazarine 14107(h), with marginal and interlinear glosses from a
CONT: (vol. 2, pp. 1945-6; 1962-8) as in no. 44. class lecture—Berlin (East) SB—Lueneburg Ratsbuecherei.
Suppl. 1: LXXI; NUC 171: 432
Angel. 44.20.6-7. 1567
*111] A reprint of no. 96, without Vincente’s preface.
*109] Complete Works, tr. Janus Cornarius. Basel: Froben and Episcopius.
Baudrier 10: 379; Suppl. 1: LXII; NUC 461: 123.
With Ficino’s arguments and commentaries.
Columbia Gonz. Lodge 1567. P.657—Bologna UB—Cava Badia—Chicago
TP: Platonis Atheniensis philosophi summi ac penitus divini opera quae ad nos
UL—Louvain UL—Madrid BN—Ambros.—Yale UL—Piacenza BC.
extant omnia per Ianum Cornarium medicum phvsicum latina lingua conscrip-
ta. Eiusdem Iani Cornarii eclogae decern breviter et sententiarum et genuinae
verborum lectionis locos selectos complectentes. Additis Marsilii Ficini 112] Part of the Prt. , tr. Ficino. Antwerp: Christopher Plantin.
argumentis et commentariis in singulos dialogos. ... Basileae MDLXI. ...COL: TP: Pindari Olympia Pythia Nemea isthmia caeterorum octo Lyricorum car-
Basileae in ol’ficina Frobeniana per Hieronvmum Frobenium et Nicolaum mina. Antverpiae apud Chr. Plantin, 1567.
Episcopium mense Augusto anno Domini MDLXI.
CONT: (pp. 133-135) An excerpt from the Prt. in Greek with Ficino’s Latin
SIGN: a-P6 a-z8 A-Z8 Aa-Zz8 AA-OO8 PP8 QQ-ZZ8 = (24) + 1048 + (60) pp. version.
Fol.
E. Cockx-Indestege and G. Glorieux, Belgica Typographica 1541-1600 (Nieuw-
CONT: (ss. a2r-aJr) Amplissimis atque prudentissimis viris consule senatuique koop, 1968), 1: 330, no. 4007.
universo celeberrimae urbis Francofordiensis ad Moenam sitae, dominis et
patronis suis observandis Achates Cornarius medicus s. p. d., inc. Diu multum- Brussels, Bibb Roy. VH II.167A.
que mihi deliberanti. (s. aJv) Platonis vita ex Diogene Laertio, Iano Cornario
medico interprete. (s. (3!v) Ficino, Vita Platonis. (pp. 1-1012) the dialogues, tr.
Cornarius, in their Thrasvllan tetralogies, with Ficino's arguments and com­ 1568
mentaries; each tetralogy is followed by one of Cornarius’ “ Eclogues” , (pp- *113] Ax., tr. Hermannus Raianus. Cologne: Heirs of Arnold Birckmann.
1013-1048) the Tv., the six Spuria, and the bUpi °* (Ps ^
Timaeus Locrus, all tr. Cornarius, with another “ Eclogue” at the end. TP: riXocTcovoc; ’A££oxo<; 7) blepi Oavdccou, StaXoyoi; auv-couoi; -,i xai ~avu imaxperc-
tixo<;. Platonis Axiochus seu De morte, dialogus et breuis et summe elegans.
Graesse 5: 320; Brunet 4: 698; BNPL, c. 3; STC-Germanv, p. 702; BMC 191: Cum versione et scholiis Hermanni Rayani Welsdalii in Academia Coloniensi
182; Bietenholz, p. 118; Adams 2: P.1448; NUC 461: 122. medicinae professoris ordinarii. Coloniae apud heredes Arnoldi Birckmanni,
774 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 775

MDLXVIII __ No COL. This edition sometimes issued with Primus [- 1570

Secundus] tomus librorum omnium naturalis philosophiae Aristotelis Stagiritae
* 115] A reprint of no. 111.
principis philosophorum ... interprete loanne Argyropvlo, addita e regione
Ioachimi Perionii versione; ... Accessit Platonis dialogus qui inscribitur Ax­ Baudrier 10: 380; Graesse 5: 320; Su p p l. 1: LXII; NUC 461: 123.
iochus sive De morte graece cum interpretatione latina et scholiis eiusdem
Rome BNC 6.41.0.6—Barcelona UB—Brera.
Raiiani Welsdalii ... Coloniae apud heredes Arnoldi Birckmanni, MDLXVIII.
SIGN: ot-v4 8 ’ = (15 leaves.) 4to.
1571
CONT: (s. orr) Illustrissimo et reverendissimo principi Domino Gerardo a
Grovsbeeck, electo et confirmato episcopo Leodiensi, Duci Bullonensi, Comiti *116] Ch., tr. Ficino. Paris: Benenatus.
Lossensi, Marchioni Franchimonensi Hermannus Rayanus Welsdalius in TP: nXdtTCjjvo^ Kpectov rj Flepi Tzpccxxou. Crito vel De eo quod agendum. Lutetiae
Academia Coloniensi medicinae publicus ordinariusque professor perpetuam MDLXXI apud Ioannem Benenatum. No COL.
felicitatem. inc. Posteaquam eius philosophiae (dated “ Ubiorum Coloniae
mense Februario anno 1568"). (s. or:v) Liminal verses, Hermannus Raianus SIGN: In two parts: (pt. 1) A-B++ (pt. 2) I4 Kf)= 16+ 19 pp. 4to.
Lectori, (s. a 4r) .4.v. in Greek with a Latin trans. by Raianus in parallel col­ CONT: (pt. 1) C r i., in Greek, (pt. 2) Cn., [tr. Ficino],
umns. (s. vJr) In Axiochum Dialogum Platonis plane divinum annotationes
succinctae per Hermannum Rayanum Welsdalium ... Argumentum Dialogi, Maittaire 3: 314.363; Graesse 5: 317; STC-France, p. 354; BNPL, c. 66; BMC
inc. Socrates Axiochum aegrotum consolatur. 191: 200; Renouard, Im p n m e u r s 3: 481, no. 652.
Graesse 5: 317; BNPL, c. 145: facsimile edition in F. M. Padelford, ed., T he BL 714.g. 1(4)—Paris BN R.1526 has MS notes to the Greek text ending with
(Baltimore. Md., 1934).
Axiochus o f Plato Translated by E d m u n d Spenser 'Tmem huic dialogo Nicolaus Clerus imposuit Lutetiae in collegio Claramon-
tano die 17 Nov. 1570 [tzT] cum incepisset 1 O ct.’’
Perugia BCA 1.1.207 (12), .Lv. only—BAV Barb. J. III.63-64, lacking Tv.—
Aachen Oeffl.bibl. — Berlin (East) SB, with both parts—Mainz Episc. Sem.—
*117] Complete Works, tr. Ficino, in the redaction of Grynaeus. ,4.v., tr.
Salamanca UB—Warsaw BN.
Agricola. Venice: Hieronymus Scotus.
Omnia divini Platonis opera tralatione Marsilii Ficini et ad graecum codicem
accurata castigatione. Quae recenti hac editione nostra multa quam antea or-
natiora et locupletiora sunt facta, opera et diligentia Iacobi Tapia Aldana, men-
ca. 1570 dis sublatis plurimis quae Platonis non minus germanum sensum devastaverunt
quam dilucidationes Marsilii perniciose corrumperant ... Venetiis apud
* 114] jUt/., Virt., Clit., tr. Joachim Camerarius. Leipzig: n. pr.
Hieronymum Scotum MDLXXI. COL: Venetiis apud Hieronvmum Scotum
TP: Libellus Plutarchi Chersonensis De virtute morali quo exponitur summa MDLXX.
doctrinae illius itemque adiunctorum scriptorum graece editorum interpretatio
latina, una cum explicatione praecipuorum locorum et rerum necessariarum SIGN: *-***8 A-Z8 AA-KK8 LL1U= (48) + 548 pp. Fol.
enarratione. autore Ioachimo Camerario Pabeperg. No COL. n.pl.pr.a. 221 CONT: As in no. 52.
pp., 8vo.
STC-Italy, 2: 606; NUC 461: 123.
CONT: (pp. 38-45) De iusto seu de iure tamquarn Platonis. Aiunt autem
BNC Rome 14.10. G .9—Angel. TT.19.2—Bergamo BC—Chicago UL—
dialogum hunc germanum autoris illius non esse (i.e., Just. , tr. Camerarius).
Jerusalem Nat’l Libr.—BL—Vicenza BC — Folger Libr.
(pp. 45-53) De uirtute, an doctrina aliqua huius est. Dialogus Platonis haud
germanus, ut perhibent, sicut praecedens et sequens (i.e., Virt.,
tr. Camerarius). (pp. 53-62) Clitophon vel De admonitoribus seu cohorta- 1573
tionibus (tr. Camerarius). (pp. 183-187) Camerarius’ Exphcatio of the Just. , inc.
Platonem huius dialogi autorem non esse perhibetur. (pp. 188-191) idem, Ex- 118] nXdtTcovoi; ’Ai-i'oxog r| Ilepi Qavaxou. ... Platonis Axiochus seu De morte ...
plicatio of the Virt., inc. An doctrina sit virtutis et an virtus doceri possit graece cum versione et scholiis Hermanni Rayani ... Coloniae, 1573. SIGN: a-b4.
dicitur. (pp. 191-203) idem, Exphcatio of the Clit., inc. Sic sumus interpretari 4to. See no. 113.
nomen. BNPL, c. 145.
BNC 138: 913, 945; BNPL, c. I ll \ Jo a ch im C am erarius, ed. F. Baron (Munich, Paris, Bibl. Mazarine 14127 (2)—Paris UB 8vo 318 (5).
1978), p. 248, no. 154.
Paris BN R. 17815 — Paris BN R .20576-7 (nor seen), apparently dated 1570. *119] A m a t., tr. Ficino. Paris: Benenatus.
776 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 777

TP: nXd-ccovo!; ’Epacrcat, f| ITepl 9 iXoac>9 ia<;. Platonis Amatores seu De Angel. YY.21.14—Berlin (East) SB—Bodl. — Uppsala UB—Vienna ONB—
Philosophia. Parisiis apud Ioannem Benenatum. MDLXXIII. No COL. Weimar, Zentralbibl. d. deutschen Klassik.
SIGN: In two parts: (pt. 1) A6 + (pt. 2) A4 = 10+7 pp. 4to.
CONT: (pt. 1) A m a t., in Greek, (pt. 2) A m a t., [tr. Ficino]. 1578
Maittaire 1: 2.152; Graesse 5: 317; STC-France, p. 355; BMC 191: 244' + 123] A x ., tr. Hermannus Raianus. Bartfa (Hungary): David Gutgesell.
Renouard, Im p n m eu rs 3: 489, no. 661. TP: Axiochus divini Platonis seu De contemnenda morte dialogus commentariis
BL 525.k.17(4)—Louvain, Univ. Cath. explicatus a Nicolao Germati [Gyarmathi Miklos], rectore scholae Vyheliensis.
Bartphae excudebat David Gutgesel anno 1578. COL: Bartphae excudebat
David Gutgesel anno 1577.
1575
SIGN: [x7] A-K8 L4 = (91 leaves). 8vo.
*120] Ep., tr. Pierre de la Ramee. Basel: Perna.
CONT: (s. [x‘] r) Reverendissimo ac illustri d. D. Gregorio Bornemizza
TP: Petri Rami Praelectiones in Ciceronis orationes octo consulares ... Basileae episcopo Varadiensi, praeposito Scepusiensi et Ia^ouiensi, consiliario
per Petrum Pernam anno M DLXXV. 4to. sacratissimae Caesareae Regiaeque Majestatis etc. domino et patrono suo
CONT: (pp. 359-444) as in no. 76. clementissimo s. p., inc. Quintus nunc annus agitur (signed "Nicolaus Ger­
mati” and dated “ Vvhelini anno M DLXXXVIII” ). (ss. [x'J r and [x'] r)
BMC 191: 243. Liminal verses by Germati and Georgius Molnar. (s. [x'] v) Lectori salutem,
BL 834.f.21 — Huntington Library. inc. En tibi, lector ornatissime, exhibemus Axiochum Platonis. (ss. A’r—Llsr)
A x ., [tr. Raianus] with a running commentary by Germati. inc. Philosophiain
defmiens divinus Plato mortis meditationem earn esse dicit.
1576 R egi Xtagyarorszdgi N yo m ta tva n yo k (R e s httera n a e H u n g a n a e ) (Budapest, 1971), p.
*121] A corrected reprint of no. 108. 392, no. 399.

BNC 51: 703; Su p p l. 1: LXXIII; BMC 72: 762; NUC 171: 433. Budapest, Nat’l Szechenyi Library.

Angel. YY. 19.19-20—BAY R .1 .11.691 (1-2). *124] Complete Works, in Greek and Latin, edited by Henri II Estienne and
translated by Jean de Serres. S p u ria , A x ., D e j., tr. Janus Cornarius and revised
bv Jean de Serres. C l i t . , tr. Ficino, edited Jean de Serres. E p. X I I I , tr.
1577 Anonymus Lugdunensis. Geneva: Henri Estienne.
*122] A x . , tr. Hieronymus Wolf; T ht. 172C-177C only, tr. Adolf Occo. Basel: TP: nXaxcovoi; arcavxa xa aco^opeva. Platonis opera quae extant omnia. Ex nova
Perna. Ioannis Serrani interpretatione, perpetuis eiusdem notis illustrata quibus et
methodus et doctrinae summa breuiter et perspicue indicatur. Eiusdem annota­
TP: Doctrina recte vivendi ac moriendi ad mores pie ac honeste conformandos
tio n s in quosdam suae illius interpretationis locos. Henrici Stephani de
etiam adultis, ad linguae utriusque exercitia iuuenibus potissimum conducens.
quorundam locorum interpretatione iudicium et multorum contextus Graeci
... Basileae, Petri Pernae impensa MDLXXVII. No COL.
emendatio. 1578. Excudebat Henricus Stephanus cum privilegio Caes. Maiest.
SIGN: a-z8 A-M8 = 560 pp. 8vo.
SIGN: 3 vols., Fol. (vol. 1) *4 **6 **8 A-Z8 Aa-Xx6 Yy7 = (36) + 542. (vol. 2)
CONT: (pp. 19-20) T ht. 172C-177C only, tr. Occo [see Cat. C, no. 11]. (pp- 11 4 AA-ZZ0 AAa-ZZz6 AAaa-ZZzz6 AAaaa-NNnnn6 OOooo4 = (8) + 992 pp.
345-346) Domino Adolpho Occoni ex xpiytmai; iaipaj. Anonymus [i.e., (vol. 3) 1l4 AAAA-ZZZZ8 AAAAA-YYYYY8 ZZZZZ4 a-f4 = (8) + 416 +
Hieronymus Wolf] s. d., inc. Libellis superioribus etiam Axiochum (dated 139 pp.
“ Augustae Vindelicorum 4 Nonas Octobris eij i0axr]i; T]vop.oeaT7i<; anno restitutae
CONT: (vol. 1, s. *2r) Serranus, dedicatory epistle to Queen Elizabeth I of
humano genere salutis M DLXXVI” ). (pp. 347-357) A x . , in Greek, (pp.
England, inc. Quae me causa impulerit (dated "Lausannae anno ultimae Dei
358-359) [Hier. Wolf], Argumentum in Axiochum, inc. Bono viro mortem ex-
patientiae MDLXXVII Cal. Octobr.” ). (s. *4r) Henricus Stephanus Lectori
petendam esse. (pp. 360-378) Axiochus sive De morte dialogus incerti authoris
9 iAOTCAaxam s. d., inc. Quum mihi Ioannes Serranus suam Platonis interpreta-
anonymo [i.e., Hieronymus Wolf] interprete. (pp. 376) [Hier. Wolf], Annota-
tionem. (s. **‘r) Ioannes Serranus verae solidaeque philosophiae studioso lec­
tiones in Axiochum, dated at the end “ Idibus Octobris anno salutis
tori, inc. Futurumne sit nostrorum hominum studiis operae pretium. (s.
MDLXXVI” .
***3r— ***8r) Testimonia from ancient authors and liminal poems in Greek
BNPL, c. 152. and Latin by Franciscus Portus, Henri Estienne, Janus Saracenus, Janus
778 part nr C A TA LO G S 779

Tenantius, Milo Bodiev, Theodore Beza and others, (s. ***'r-v) Table of Con­ BL 524. k .l—Chicago UL—UCLA—Michigan UL—Udine BC—Vicenza
tents. The dialogues follow, in Serranus’ new order by “ Svzvgiae” ; each is ac­ BC—Vienna ONB.
companied by an argument of Serranus, a series of “ Axiomata et Theoremata”
extracted from the dialogue, and testimonia. The Greek and Latin texts are
given in parallel columns with variant readings and running headings in the 1584
margins, added by Estienne. Estienne also gives in the margin alternative Latin
renderings of a few passages. The order of dialogues is as follows: First Svzygia: *127] Meno, tr. Cornarius. Lippe: Grothenius.
E u th p h r ., A p ., C n ., Phd., tr. Serranus. Second Svzygia: 7 "kg.. A rn a t., T h t., S p h ., TP: Philosophia Ethica ex Aristotele et aliis methodice repetita, studio Gulielmi
E u th d ., P rt., Hi. rn a . , tr. Serranus. Third Svzygia: C r a ., G rg., I o n , tr. Serranus. Adolphi Scribonii Marpurgensis. Cui additur Menon Platonis sive Dialogus De
(vol. 2 , ss. 1 1 -r ff.) Serranus, dedication to James VI of Scotland. Then, Fourth virtute, ab eodem autore brevissime illustratus. Lemgoviae apud Conradum
Svzygia: P h lb ., M e n ., A le. 1- 2 , C h rm ., L a .. L y . , H ip p a rc h ., M x ., P i t ., M i n ., R e p ., Grothenium MDLXXXIIII. No COL.
L g . , E p in . , tr. Serranus. (vol. 3 , ss. 11 ~r ff.) Serranus, dedication to the Senate
of Bern. Then, Fifth Svzygia: 7 7 ., Timaeus Locrus. C riti., P rm ., Srnp., P hdr., SIGN: A-I8 = (14) + 130 pp. 8vo.
H i. m a . , tr. Serranus. Sixth Svzygia: E p. I - X I I , tr. Serranus. E p. X I I I [tr. CONT: (s. A-r) Illustri et Generoso d. D. Simoni, Comiti in Lippia et
Anonyrnus Lugdunensis, from no. 96], A x. , [tr. Janus Cornarius, from no. Rethperg, Domino in Esentz, Stedesdorpff et Witmunden, domino suo clemen-
109|. S p u ria , [tr. Cornarius, rev. Serranus[. C lit., [tr. Ficino]. D e f., [tr. Cor­ tissimo, inc. Cum non tarn iucunda et utilis. (p. 83) Menon Platonis, sive
narius]. Then (second numeration, pp. 1-8) loannis Serrani Annotationes dialogus De virtute. [Scribonius], Analysis huius dialogi, inc. Doctrina huius
quibus suae interpretationis rationem reddit necessariis in locis et obscuros dialogi de virtute ut plurimum est elentica. (pp. 84-130) Meno, [tr. Cornarius],
quosdam iliustrat. (pp. 9-79) Henrici Stephani annotationes in Platonem, with printed marginalia by Scribonius.
preceded by a notice to the reader, inc. Lectori: Antequam iis quae in margine
annotaui. (pp. 80-139) Index. BNPL, c. 157 (dated mistakenly to 1684).
Graesse 5: 314; Brunet 4: 695; Renouard. Estienne, p. 145; Hoffmann 3: 119; Basel UB B.c. VIII.45, nr. 2—Vienna ONB.
BNC 138: 841-842: John Rvlands 3: 1423; BN PL, c. 7; STC-Scotland. p. 289;
BMC 191: 180; Adams 2: P.1434; F. Schreiber, The Estiennes, An Annotated Cata­
logue (New York, 1982), pp. 167-170, no. 201.
1585
Corsin. 21. G. 1-12—Augsburg SB— Basel UB (ex-libris of J. J. Grynaeus)—
Berlin (East) SB—Bologna UB—Brera—Cambridge UL—Harvard UL— *128] Ax., tr. Ficino, edited by J. J. Beurer. Basel: Hieronymus Froben.
Canberra, Nat’l Libr. of Australia—Chicago UL—DLC — Dresden LB—Duke TP: Platonis Axiochus sive De morte dialogus graece et latine, logica analysi per
UL—Rice. — Florence BNC—Jerusalem Nat’l Libr. — Leiden UL—BL (MS quaestiones in usum scholarum explicatus per loannem Iacobum Beurerum
notes of Charles Burney)—Madrid BN—Melbourne UL—Ambros.—Naples Saccingenesem, Academiae Friburgensis professorem publicum. Basileae per
BN—Yale UL—Columbia UL—Bodl.—Padua BC—Univ. of Penna.— Hieronymum Frobenium MDXXCV. No COL.
Piacenza BC — BAY'—Vicenza BC—Vienna ONB—Viterbo Bibl. Cap. (ex-
libris of Latino Latini). SIGN: a-b8 c6 = 44 pp. 8vo.
CONT: (p. 3) Beurer, Preface to Joannes Noschius [Text 85]. (p. 11) Beurer,
In Platonis Axiochum sive consolationem mortis, notae et quaestiones logicae.
1580 (pp. 19-44) Ax., tr. Ficino, with Greek text in parallel columns.
*125] A new edition of no. 120. Graesse 5: 317.
Contents (pp. 521-606) as in no. 76. Bodl. Antiq. f. X.32(5)—Augsburg SB—Bologna UB—Brno SK—Uppsala UB.
BNC 138: 944; BNPL, c. 110; BMC 191: 243.
BAV Barb. K. I ll.79—BL 834.f.22 —Berlin (East) SB. 129] Meno, tr. Cornarius. Basel: Conrad Waldkirch.
G. A. Scribonii Philosophia Ethica ex Aristotele et aliis methodice repetita ...,
1581 cui additur Menon Platonis sive dialogus De virtute ab eodem autore brevissime
illustratus. Basileae apud Conradum Waldkirch. 8vo. (14)+ 107 + (7) pp. See
*126] A reissue of no. 117, with a new title page dated 1581. COL: Venetiis
no. 133.
apud Hieronymum Scotum MDLXX.
NUC 535: 116; Durling no. 4166.
Graesse 5: 320; STC-Italv 2: 606; BMC 191: 182; NUC 461: 123; Adams 2:
P.1449. Berlin (East) SB—Bethesda, Md., Nat’l Libr. Medicine—Halle (Saale).
780 P A R T III CATALOGS 781

1586 SIGN: A-H8 = (14) + 107 + (2) pp. 8vo.

*130] Ax., tr. Hieronymus Wolf; Tht. 172C-177C only, tr. Adolf Occo. Basel- CONT: (pp. 65-107) as in no. 127.
Conrad Waldkirch.
NUC 535:116.
TP: Vitae et mortis compendium auctorum diversorum graece et latine, ad
morum honestatem et linguae exercitia. Basileae apud Conradum Waldkirch Basel UB, K.f. V .l, no. 1.
MDXXCVI. No COL.
677 + (2) pp. 8vo. *134] A m a t . , with two Latin versions by Reinerus Langius. Marburg: Paul
CONT: (pp. 19-29 and 343-453) as in no. 122. Egenolph.

BNC 138: 896; BNPL, c. 62. TP: Idea sive partitio totius philosophiae ex Platone potissimum et Aristotele
collecta, auctore Bernhardo Copio iurisconsulto et philosopho Marpurgensis
BN Paris R.25676—Basel UB—Upsala UB. Academiae clarissimo. Accessit praeterea dialogus Platonis De philosophia
graecus, cum versione magistri Reineri Langii Bremani et notis domini Copii,
*131] Ep., tr. Ficino, in the redaction of Grvnaeus and Anonvmus Lugdunen- itemque De controversiis logicarum artium tollendis iudicium eiusdem. Mar-
sis. Basel: Sebastian Henricpetri. Edited b v j. J. Beurer. purgi typis Pauli Egenolphi, 1588. No COL.
TP: Epistolae Platonis graece et latine, eruditissimis notis logicis, ethicis et SIGN: A-H8 I4 = 68 leaves. 8vo.
politicis distinctae et illustratae et Machiavellismo oppositae. Opera et studio
Ioannis Iacobi Beureri Saccingensis in archigymnasio Friburgensi latinarum CONT: (f. 2r) Amplissimis spectabilibus pietate prudentia et humanitate con-
literarum professoris. Accessit in calce analysis Psalmi CXX una cum aliis spicuis dominis consulibus ac senatoribus reipublicae Corbachianae eu 7rpaT-:£iv,
quibusdam. Basileae per Sebastianum Henricpetri. COL: Basileae per Sebas- inc. Quemadmodum nuper in jundicis soceri mei (dated “ ex musaeo nostro Cal.
tianum Henricpetri anno a Christo nato MDXXCVI mense Septembri. Januarii anni partus virginei 1588 de quo maiores nostri plurima tristia praedix-
erunt” ). (ff. 30v-44v) A m a t., a literal version by Langius with the Greek in
SIGN: a-[34 a-s4 t~ = (16) + 148 pp. 4to. parallel columns, (ff. 45r-55v) A m a t. a freer version, also by Langius. (ff.
CONT: (s. a ‘v) Dedicatory inscription of Beurer to the Rector of the Academv 55v-64r) Bernhard Cop, In eundem dialogum notae.
at Fribourg, (s. err) Prooemium in epistolas Platonis [Text 86], (s. (33v) Perugia BCA I.N .615—Berlin (East) SB.
Liminal verse, elegy of Ioachimus Rosalechius to J. J. Beurer. (pp. 1-148) Ep.
I-XII, tr. Ficino; Ep. XIII, tr. Anonymus Lugdunensis, with the Greek text in
parallel columns, and Beurer’s arguments and annotations. 1589
Graesse 5: 317; BNC 138: 943; BNPL, c. 109; STC-Germany, p. 703; *135] Meno, tr. Cornarius. Frankfurt am Main: Johann Wechel.
Bietenholz, p. 80; BMC 191: 242.
TP: Ethica Guilelmi Adolphi Scribonii ex Aristotele et aliis summis philosophis
Angel. SS.4.39—Augsburg SB—Basel UB—Bologna UB—Brera—BL—Paris
repetita, nunc denuo pluribus in locis diligentius ab auctore illustrata et
BN—Huntington Library—Marc.—Weimar, Zentralbibl. der deutschen
copiosius adaucta. Cum Menone Platonis De virtute. Seorsum excusi Joannis
Klassik.
Rodingi Marpurgensis Ethicae Libri III, nunc primum in lucem editi. Apud
Joannem Wechelum M DLXXXIX. No COL.
1588 SIGN: A-E8 F4 = (8) + 79 pp. 8vo.
*132] A reprint of no. 111. Lyons: Nathaniel Vincente. CONT: (pp. 50-79) as in no. 127.
Suppl. 1: LXII; STC-Scotland, p. 289; Adams 2: P.1450; NUC 461: 123; BMC BNPL, c. 157.
1965 suppl. 36: 717.
Marc. 65.d. 134(3)—Basel UB, K.f. VII.40—Bautzen, SB.
Angel. TT.22.1—Aachen Oeffl.bibl.—Basel UB—Berlin (East) SB—Bologna
UB—Brera—Harvard UL—Madrid BN—Vallicelliana.
1590
*133] A reprint of no. 129.
*136] Complete Works, tr. Ficino, in the redaction of Grvnaeus and Anonymus
TP: Philosophia Ethica ex Aristotele et aliis methodice repetita, studio Gulielmi Lugdunesis. Ax. , tr. Agricola. Spuria, tr. Corradi. Part of the 77., tr. Cicero.
Adolphi Scribonii Marpurgensis. Cui additur Menon Platonis, sive dialogus IV Ep. XIII, tr. Anonymus Lugdunensis. Printed in Geneva by Guillaume Le
virtute, ab eodem autore brevissime illustratus. Basileae apud Conradum Maire and sold in Lyons by Le Maire and Francois Le Preux. Greek text edited
Waldkirch. MDXXCIIX. No COL. by Henri II Estienne.
 782 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 783

TP: Tou 9 eiou nXdxcovo^ otTtav-ca xa awCopEva. Divini Platonis opera omnia quae CONT: Michael Boschius, dedication to Johann Philip von Kettenheim,
extant Marsilio Ficino interprete; graecus contextus quam diligentissime cum Abraham Held and Josias Rihelius, inc. Quod Israelitis olim. Then, Rector
emendatioribus exemplaribus collatus est, latina interpretatio a quam plurimis Academiae Argentinensis Melchior Junius Witebergensis studiosis adolescen-
superiorum editionum mendis expurgata. Arguments perpetuis et commen- tibus, inc. Graecae linguae professionem. Then Boschius, Oratio de Platonis
tariis quibusdam eiusdem Marsilii Ficini, iisque nunc multo emendatius quam vita, publice recitata in novo auditorio Academiae Argentinensis 6 Nov. anno
antehac editis, totum opus explanatum est atque illustratum. Quae cur in 1591, inc. Etsi vereor. Then Serranus, Argumentum in Apologiam Socratis, inc.
calcem operis translata sint, et quid pro hac trajectione repositum sit, ex epistola Socrates impietatis accusatus [from no. 124], Then (pp. 1-56) Ap. , in Greek,
ad Lectorem patet. ... Lugduni apud Guilielmum Laemarium MDXC. [Other (pp. 57-130) Ap. , tr. Serranus, with printed notabilia. (pp. 131-133) Extract
copies exist with the imprint “ apud Franciscum le Preux’’.] COL: Excudebat from Augustine’s Civ. Dei on Plato, (p. 134) Liminal verses, [from no. 124].
Guilielmus Laemarius Cal. Augusti MDXC.
Graesse 5: 317; NUC 461: 132; Ritter 4: 411, no. 2938.
SIGN: 1 ! 6 111!8 A-Zb Aa-Zz6 Aaa-Zzz6 Aaaa-Cccc<> Dddd8 = (28) + 849 + (28) Yale UL, Gfp66 B591 —Berlin (East) SB.
pp. Fol.
CONT: (s. 11 -recto) Typographus candido lectori salutem [Text 87], (s. 1 1 :i + 139] Ap., tr. Esrom Rudinger, with the Greek text of Henri II Estienne.
recto) Ficino, preface to Lorenzo d e ’Medici [Text 67[. (s. 1 (+recto) Life of Nuremberg: Christoph Lochner and Johann Hofmann.
Plato from Diogenes Laertius, in Greek and Latin, (s. 1 l 1 !8recto) Liminal
verses from no. 124. (s. 1 l 1 l8verso) Table of Contents, (pp. 1-727) The TP: Apologia Socratis Platonica graece cum interpretatione latina nova et ex-
dialogues, tr. Ficino, in their Ficinian order with the Greek in parallel columns, plicationibus necessariis. Ex scholis Esromi Rudingeri Pabeburgensis in
and with a reduced version of the arguments and variae lectwnes from the Academiae Witebergicae doctrina publica et ordinaria anni 1573, nunc primum
Stephanus edition [no. 124], (pp. 728-732) ,4.v., tr. Agricola, with Greek text, edita anno MDXCI. Noribergae typis Christophori Lochneri et Iohannis Hof-
(pp. 732-750) Spuria, tr. Corradi, with the Greek text. (pp. 751-753) Timaei par­ manni. No COL.
ticular tr. Cicero [i.e., the De universitate]. (pp. 754-849) Ficino’s arguments and SIGN: )(8 A-Z8 Aa8 = (16) + 381 pp., irregularly numbered (1-272; 253-362).
commentaries. 8vo.
Graesse 5: 314, 320; Brunet 4: 698; Hoffmann 3: 121; Assemani, p. 472; CONT: Ornatissimis et doctissimis viris D. M. Wolfgango Hegio, Sebaldinae
Baudrier l: 240; BNC 138; 842; STC-France. p. 353; Suppl. 1: LXII; BMC et M. Andreae Bohemo, Laurentianae scholarum in urbe Norica Rectoribus,
191: 180; Adams 2: P.1441; NUC 461: 112. Typographi s. d., me. Neminem sanum et recto iudicio praeditum (dated
BL C.77.f. 1 (Le Maire)— BL C.107.k.3(Le Preux, with MS notes of Ben Jon- “ Noribergae mense Octobri anno MDXCI’’). (pp. 1-41) Ap. , in Greek, (pp.
son)—Leiden 750. A.3 with MS notes of David Ruhnken—Yale 1742 Libr. 42-84) Ap. , tr. Rudinger. (pp. 85-86) Studiosis linguae graecae in Academia
3.2.3, ex libris of Bishop Berkeley—Basel UB—Bergamo BC—Berlin (East) Witebergensi. (pp. 87-362) Rudinger, grammatical commentary on the Ap. , en­
SB—Cambridge UL—Chicago UL—Coburg LB—Dresden LB—Harvard titled irpoXeyopeva.
UL—Naples BN—Columbia UL—Angel.—Vienna ONB. Graesse 5: 317.
Leiden UL, 679. F.25—Nuernberg, Landeskirchliches Archiv, Fen. V.343.8vo.
*137] Identical with no. 136, but with the place of printing given as “ Genevae
apud G. Laemarium’’, presumably for the Protestant'market. 1592
Hoffmann 3: 121; STC-Scotland, p. 289; BNPL, c. 7; BNC 138:842. *140] Cri., tr. Jean de Serres, wuth the Greek text of Henri II Estienne.
Strasbourg: Antonius Bertramus.
TP: nXdxwvoi; Kptxcov fj Flepl TCpax-cou. Platonis Crito vel De eo quod agendum
1591 graece et latine. In usum scholarum seorsum excusus. Cum praefatione ad
*138] Ap., tr. Jean de Serres, with the Greek text of Henri II Estienne. generosum D. Fabianum a Dhon M. Michaelis Boschii Winsemii professoris
Strasbourg: Antonius Bertramus. linguae graecae in Academia Argentoratensi. Argentorati excudebat Antonius
Bertramus. MDXCII. No COL.
TP: nXaxcovos Eajxpaxou? attoXovia. Platonis pro Socrate defensio graece et latine
in usum scholarum seorsum excusa. Cum praefatione de Platonis vita eiusque SIGN: A8 A-D8 = (16) + 58 + (5) pp. 8vo.
scriptis et cur ea in scholis et academiis retinenda sint atque explicanda, CONT: (s. A2r) Generoso et inclyto Baroni Dn. Fabiano a Dhon ... s. p. d.,
Michaelis Boschii Winsemii professoris linguae graecae in academia Argen- inc. Reipsa comperi (dated “ Argentorati VI Nov. anno 1592’’). (s. A5 r) Pro-
toratensi. Argentorati excudebat Antonius Bertramus MDXCI. No COL. gramma graecarum literarum studiosis adolescentibus s. p. d., inc. Cum
SIGN: (:)« ):(8 ):():(« ):():():(“ A-H8 I4 = (48) + 134 pp. 8vo. Socrates, vir sapientissimus vitaeque integerrimus. (s. A'v) Michael Boschius,
 784 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 785

argument to the Cri. , inc. Cum Socrates in more atque usu haberet. (pp. 1-25) graeca lingua in latinam versi. (pp. 349-451) In Platonis libros De republica An­
C n., in Greek, (pp. 25-58) C n ., tr. Serranus. (s. D;,r) Joannes Serranus. In tonii Montecatini partitiones. (pp. 453-592) Platonis Atheniensis philosophi De
Critonem, inc. Varius huius dialogi titulus [from no. 124], legibus vel De legum latione libri duodecim cum Epinornide, a docto quodam
viro [Cornario] in latinum sermonem conversi. (pp. 593-716) Antonio
Graesse 5: 317; Ritter 4: 411, no. 2939.
Montecatini, Epitome eorum librorum et legum quas illi continent in ordinem
Bodl. Antiq. f. X.32 (4)—Berlin (East) SB. quendam redactarum.
BNC 138: 917; BNPL, c. 83; BMC 191: 223; Adams 1: A .1915; NUC 391: 661.
* 141 ] Complete Works, tr. Ficino, revised by Grvnaeus, Anonvmus Lugdunen-
sis and Estienne Tremblay. A x., tr. Agricola. Spuria, tr. Corradi. Part of the 77.. BAV Barb. J . IV .68-70—Leiden UB—Madrid BN—Columbia UL Kristeller
tr. Cicero. Ep. X III, tr. Anonvmus Lugdunensis. Geneva: Jacobus Stoer. Micr. Coll.—Vallicelliana.
TP: Divini Platonis opera omnia quae extant ex latina Marsilii Ficini versione
nunc multo accuratius quam antea cum Graeco contextu collata et quam 1596
plurimis locis emendata. In hac editione ad Ficini argumenta accesserunt
perpetuae notae marginales cuiusque disputationis summam et scopum breviter *144] Euthphr., tr. Theodor Victor. Marburg: Paul Egenolph.
indicantes. Opus tribus tomis distinctum. ... Apud Iacobum Stoer. M DXCII. TP: ’Eu0u9pa>v 7tepi oai'ou, id est, De sancto, insignis Platonis dialogus
Coloniae Allobrogum. No COL. 8vo. metaphysicus, in alma Marpurgensi Academia accurate fere ad verbum inter-
SIGN: In three vols: (vol. 1) a-(38 y6 A-Za Aa-Zz8 Aaa-Iii8 Kkk2 = (44) + 867 + pretatione et tribus analvsibus, dialectica, rhetorica et grammatica, nec non aliis
(20) pp. (vol. 2) a-z8 aa-zz8 aaa-ggg8 hhh4 = 836 pp. (vol. 3) A-Z8 AA-ZZ8 quibusdam notis publice explicatus a Magistro Theodore Vietore Lichwet-
AAa-ZZz8 AAaa-GGgg8 H H h h v= 1197 + (28) pp. teravo, graecarum literarum professore ordinario. Subjecta est ad finem Ethices
Idea. M arpurgi typis Pauli Egenolphi 1596. No COL.
CONT: (vol. 1, f. orr) Stephani Tremulaei ad lectorem praefatio [Text 88],
Rest as in no. I l l , with the translation further revised by Tremblay. SIGN: A-K8 L3 = 168 pp. 8vo.
Assemani, p. 472; Graesse 5: 320; Brunet Suppl. 2: 252; BNC 138: 849; BNPL, CONT: (pp. 3-4) Lectori cpt.XeXXr]vi xai cpiXoTrXa-ccavi s. d., inc. De Platone testatur
cc. 14-15; STC-Scotland, p. 289; Suppl. 1: LXII; NUC 461: 123. Augustinus, (pp. 5-29) Euthphr., in Greek, (pp. 30-61) Euthphr., tr. Vietor. (pp.
61-73) Vietor, Praefatio in laudem Platonis, analvsibus praemissa, inc. Cum in-
BAV Chigi VI. 136—Columbia B88 PJ (vol. 1 only)—Berlin (East) SB— signem principis philosophorum Platonis. (pp. 73-75) Platonis vita ex Augustini
Brera—Louvain U L —M adrid BN—Ambros. — Nijmegen UB with MS De civ. Dei lib. 8, cap. 4, a Serrano descripta ita habet. (pp. 75-78) Vietor,
notes—Urbana, Univ. of Illinois—Vienna ONB. Analysis dialogi generalis, inc. Objectum dialogi titulus indicat. (pp. 78-168)
Vietor, Analysis dialogi specialis triplex, dialectica, rhetorica, et grammatica, una cum
notis quibusdam, inc. xi vecoxepov] Exordium duobus potissimum membris constat.
1.593
142] Meno, tr. Cornarius. Hanover: Wilhelm Anton. Graesse 5: 318; BNPL, c. 3; NUC 461: 151.

Ethica Guilelmi Adolphi Scribonii ex Aristotele et aliis summis philosophis Chicago U L —Paris Univ.
repetita ... cum Menone Platonis De virtute. Hanoviae apud Guilielmum An-
tonium. 8vo, 159 pp.
1600
NUC 535.115.
145] A copy of no. 59, printed by Des Tournes.
Berlin SB.
Cartier, Bibliographic 2: 657, no. 709.
Paris BN.
1594
*143] Rep., Lgg., Epin., tr. Cornarius. Ferrara: Vittore Baldino.
1602
TP: In politica, hoc est in civiles libros Aristotelis Antonii Montecatini Fer-
rariensis progymnastica, ad illustrissimum Hieronymum Rusticuccium Sancti *146] Halcyon, tr. Agostino Dati. Basel: Sebastian Henricpetri. Edited by
Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem ... Ferrariae M DX XCVII [-MDXCVII] ex- Gilbert Cousin.
cudebat Victorius Baldinus typographus ducalis. 3 vols. Fol. Auxtavou aTCavxa. Luciani Samosatensis opera quae quidem extant omnia,
CONT: (vol. 2 [a. 1594], pp. 238-248) Platonis Atheniensis philosophi De graece et latine, in quattuor tomos divisa. ... Basileae per Seb. Henricpetri. 4
republica vel De iusto libri decern a docto quodam viro [i.e. Jano Cornario] e vols., 4to.
786 P A R T III CA TA LO G S I /

Contents (vol. l,p p . 144-152) as in no. 68. Then (p. 157) Gilbert! Cognati an- 1608
notationes, [on the Halcyon], inc. Alcyonem hunc Luciano ascriptum.
*150] A new edition of no. 60. Lyon: Paul Frellonius.
NUC 344: 353.
Contents (pp. 628-631) as in no. 60.
BAV Barb. J. VII.92-95.
BNC 138: 944; BNPL, c. 110; Brunet 5: 345.

*147] Complete Works, tr. Ficino, revised by Grynaeus and Anonvmus BL Cup.652.cc.7—Marc.
Lugdunensis, with the Greek text of Henri II Estienne. Frankfurt: Claudius
Marnius and the Heirs of Johannes Aubrius. A new printing of no. 136. 1609
Tou 9 e io u nXaTtovo? araxvxa xoc acoCopeva. Divini Platonis opera omnia quae ex­ *151] A copy of no. 150. Printed in Geneva for the Lyonnais bookseller Fran-
tant Marsilio Ficino interprete. Graecus contextus quam diligentissime cum
ciscus Faber.
emendatioribus exemplaribus collatus est, latina interpretatio a quam plurimis
superiorum editionum mendis eiusdem Marsilii Ficini, iisque nunc multo ac- Graesse 6: 499; Brunet 5: 547; BMC 117: 545; BNC 138: 945; BNPL. c. I ll;
curatius quam antehac editis, totum opus explanatum est atque illustratum. NUC 570: 141.
Francofurti apud Claudium Marnium et heredes Ioannis Aubrii, MDCII. Fob, BL Cup. 652.cc.6—Basel UB—Huntington Libr.
1355 pp.
Graesse 5: 314; Brunet 4: 695; BNC 138: 843; BNPL, c. 8; John Rvlands 3:
1423; Hoffmann 3: 121; NUC 461: 123; Suppl. 1: LXII; BMC 191:'180. 1614
BL 522.n.l — Berlin (East) SB— Bologna UB—Jerusalem Nat l Libr.—Yale *152] In Platonis dialogum qui Phaedo seu de animorum immortalitate in-
1742 Libr. 5.1.3 with the ex-libris of Bp. Berkeley—Naples BN—Columbia scribitur Pompei Garigliani Capuani Commentarii ... Neapoli ex tvpographia
UL—Piacenza BC — Marc.—Vienna ONB. Ioannis Dominici Roncalioli. Fol. (14) -t- 102 pp.
Phd. , tr. Ficino, with a running commentary by Gariglianus.
1606 BNPL, c. 179
*148] Ep. I-XII, tr. Ficino; Ep. XIII, tr. Anonvmus Lugdunensis. Geneva: BAV Barb. J.IV .83 (1).
Caldorian Society. Edited by Jacques Cujas.
’E7uaroXat 'EXXrivi'xou apotpouai, hoc est, Epistolae graecanicae mutuae anti­ *153] In Platonis Epinomidem seu Philosophum Pompeii Garigliani Capuani
quorum rhetorum oratorum philosophorum medicorum theologorum regum ac commentarii ... Neapoli ex tvpografia Ioannis Dominici Roncalioli. Fol.
imperatorum aliorumque praestantissimorum uirorum a Jacobo Cuiacio (8) + 57 pp.
clarissimo jurisconsulto magnam partem latinitate donatae. Aureliae Epin. , tr. Ficino, with a running commentary by Gariglianus.
Allobrogum sumptibus Caldorianae Societatis. Fol.
BNPL, c. 150.
Contains (pp. 277-310) Ep. I-XII, [tr. Ficino] and (p. 311) Ep. XIII, [tr.
Anonymus Lugdunensis]. BAV Barb. J.IV .83 (2).
Brunet 2: 1032.
1615
Casanatense Q. V .2—Vallicelliana S. Borrom. M .VI.295—Kebenhavn Kgl.
Bibl., Fabric. 9, with MS notes of Cl. Salmasius and J. A. Fabricius. *154] Halcyon, tr. Dati. Paris: Jules Bertault. Edited by Jacques Bourdelot.
AouxiotvoCi E o c p o a d r c E c o i ; cpiXoaocpou xa aooCopeva. Luciani Samosatensis philosophi
*149] Xleno, tr. Cornarius. Frankfurt: I. Rhodius. opera omnia quae extant cum latina doctissimorum virorum interpretatione.
lacobus Bourdelotius cum regiis codicibus aliisque manuscriptis contulit emen-
Ethica Guilielmi Adolphi Scribonii ex Aristotele et aliis summis philosophis
davit supplevit ... Lutetiae Parisiorum apud Julianum Bertault. Fol.
repetita ... ab autore ... adaucta. Cum Menone Platonis de virtute. Accesserunt
Joannis Rodingi ... Ethicae libri IIII nunc primum in lucem editi. Francofurti Contents (pp. 52-55) as in no. 68.
sumptibus I. Rhodii. 8vo.
Graesse 4: 278; STC-France, p. 341; NUC 344: 353; BMC 43: 1052 and 145:
BNPL, c. 157. 870; BNC 101: 415.
Bodl. 8vo S.99.Arb. B L C . 1 2 5 . g . 2 — B A V — M a r c . — V i c e n z a BC.
 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 789

1619 1707
*155] A reprint of no. 146. *160] Mx. , tr. Giovanni della Casa. Florence: Carlieri. Ed. Giovanni Battista
NUC 344: 353. Casotti.2
Angel. SS.4.39—Marc.—Vicenza BC. Opere di Mons. Giovanni della Casa con una copiosa aggiunta di scrittura non
piu stampate ... Firenze, appresso G. Manni, per il Carlieri, 1707. 4 vols.
Contains (vol. 3, pp. 246-251) the Mx. , tr. Giovanni della Casa, fragmentary
1641 at the end (to 239C).
*156] Def. and .4.v., tr. Ficino. Paris: Denys Bechet. Monte Cassino, Bibl. della Badia 53.E.15—BAV.
Marsilii Ficini Florentini insignis philosophi Platonici medici atque theologi
clarissimi opera ... Tomus primus [-secundus]. Parisiis apud Dionvsium 1713
Bechet. 2 vols., fol. 930 + 1064 pp.
*161] nXaxcovcx; rioActeiov rj ITlept Stxaiou [LpXioi {. Platonis _De republica sive De
Contents (vol. 2, pp. 886, 912-918) as in no. 44. iusto libri. Versionem emendavit notasque adjecit Edmundus Massey ... Can­
BMC 72: 762; BNC 51: 703; Suppl. 1: LXXIII. tabrigiae typis academicis apud Thomam Webster Cantab, et R. Wilkins in
coemetario Divi Pauli Londinii prostant venales. 2 vols., 8vo. (8) + 407 + 309
BL 524.k. 15-16—Harvard UL—Paris BN—BAV. pp.
Contains Rep. , tr. Ficino, revised by Edmund Massey.
1673 NUC 461: 195; Brunet 4: 702; Graesse 5: 319; BMC 191: 273; John Rvlands
* 157] Platonis de rebus divinis dialogi selecti, graece et latine. Socratis Apologia 3: 1424; BNPL, c. 162.
de religione, Crito de iusto, Phaedo de animae immortalitate, e libris Legum BL 521.1.10—Harvard UL—Yale UL—Paris BN — Princeton UL—BAV.
decimus de Dei existentia, Alcibiades secundus de precibus. ... Cantabrigiae ex
officina Joannis Haves ... impensis Joannis Creed. Edited by John North. 8vo,
(7) + 256 pp. 1728
Contains the Ap., Cn., Phd.. Lg. X, Ale. 2, tr. Ficino. * 162] Opere di Monsignor Giovanni della Casa, edizione veneta novissima, con
giunte di opere dello stesso autore, e di scritture sovra le medesime, oltre a
Graesse 5: 315-316; Brunet 4: 700; NUC 461: 225; BMC 191: 188. quelle chi si hanno nell’edizione Fiorentina del MDCCVII. Tomo primo
BAV Ferraiuoli V.7090— Harvard UL—BL—Yale UL—Princeton UL. [-quarto] ... in Vinezia appresso Angiolo Pasinello. ... MDCCXXVIII.
Contents (vol. 4, pp. 303-308) as in no. 160.3
1683 Monte Cassino, Bibl. della Badia.
*158] A reprint of' no. 157. *163] nappEviSric; rj Flepi tSecov. Parmenides sive De ideis et uno rerum omnium
BNC 138: 868; BNPL, c. 34; Brunet 4: 700; Suppl. 1: LXIII; John Rvlands 3: principio Platonis dialogus, studio Johanne Gulielmo Thompson ... Oxonti e
1423; BMC 191: 188. theatro Sheldoniano. 8vo.
BL 524.e.9. Contains Prm. , tr. Ficino, revised by Johann Wilhelm Thompson.
NUC 461: 171; BNC 138: 912; BNPL, c. 78; G raesse 5: 318; Brunet 4: 701;
John Rvlands 3: 1424; BNC 191: 211; Carter, A Hist, of Oxford Umv. Press 1
1696 (1975): 294, 502.
*159] Orationes duae i'unebrae, altera Platonis, dicta Menexenus, Lysiae altera,
recensore Michaele Busteed ... Cantabrigiae ex officina Joannis Hayes ... 1696.
impensis Edmundi Jeffery bibliopolae. 12mo, (16)+ 66 pp. 2 See no. 162.
3 In the fifth volume (p. 1011.) of this edition are critical notes where Giovanni Battista
Contains (pp. 39-66) Mx. , tr. Ficino. Casotti describes his discovery of unpublished texts of Della Casa, including his version
NUC 461: 168: Graesse 5: 318; BMC 191: 209. ot the M x . , at the Palazzo Ricci m Montepulciuno. These juvenilia were first published
in the Florentine edition of 1707 but were drojjped from collections of Della Casa's work
BL 524.c. 10. subsequent to the edition of 1752.
790 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 791

BL 682.e.l — Harvard UL— Leiden UL—Yale UL—Vienna ONB. *169] A reprint of no. 166.
BNC 138: 870; NUC 461: 225; Brunet 4: 699; Graesse 5: 316; Carter, Hist. Oxf.
1733 Univ. Press 1: 543.

*164] Opere di Monsignor Giovanni della Casa, dopo l'edizione di Fiorenza del 1758
MDCCVII e di Venezia del MDCCXXVIII molte illustrate e di cose inedite
*170] Axiochus graece. Reeensuit notis illustravit inclicemque verborum
accreseiute. Napoli, 1733.
locupletissimum cum Hieronvmi WolFii versione latina notisque uberioribus ad­
Contents (vol. 6. pp. 186-190) as in no. 160. jecit lohannes Fridericus Fischerus. Lipsiae ex officina Langenhernia. 8vo.
Contents as in no. 122, but without the 77)6, tr. Occo.
1744 Brunet 4: 703; BNC 138: 888; BNPL, c. 47.
*163] Platonis Phaedo sive dialogus de animae immortalitate, graece et latine. BL 230.1.9—Harvard UL—Princeton UL—Vienna ONB.
Versionem Marsilii Fieini emendavit dialogum ex ipso Platone illustravit et
commentationes philosophieas adjecit Ioannes Henricus Winkler. ... Lipsiae 1759
sutnptihus Caspari Fritseh. 8vo, (16)+ 394 pp. *171] nXaxojvop duTOAoyia Ecaxpdxoup. Kpftcav. ’AXxipidSrip oeuxecop. Ksprprot;
©T)(3atou Tiivax- Eevocpcovxop ripoSixou HpaxXfjp. Abredoniae excudebat Fran-
Graesse 5: 318; Brunet 4: 701; BNPL. c. 101; BMC 191; 214; John Rylands
ciscus Douglas. In two parts. 12mo.
3: 1424; Hoffmann 3:128; BMC 138: 935.
Contains the Ale. 2. tr. Ficino.
BL 714.6.9— Piacenza BC — Angel.—Vienna ONB.
BMC 191: 188.
BL 8473.de.36—Univ. of Pennsylvania.
1745
1765
*166] nXcHcavop StaXoyoi i. Platonis dialogi V. Reeensuit notisque illustravit
Nath. Forster ... Oxonii e tvpographeo Clarendoniano impensis Jacobi Fletcher *172] A new edition of no. 166.
bibliopolae. 8vo, (8) + 403 pp. NUC 461: 225: BNC 138: 870; Brunet 4: 699; Graesse 5: 316; John Rylands
Contains A m a t., Euthphr., A p ., Cri., P h d .. tr. Ficino, revised by Nathaniel 3: 1423; BMC 191: 189.
Forster. BL 525.h .7.
Brunet 4: 699; Graesse 5: 316; John Rylands 3: 1423; BNC 138: 870; BNPL, 1771
e. 36; NUC 461: 225; Carter. H ist. O.xf. U niv. Press 1: 528; BMC 191: 188.
*173] nXatcavop SidXoyoi y. Platonis dialogi III. Quibus praefiguntur Olvm-
BAV R. G. Class. IV.511 — BL 684.g. 1— Leiden UL—Yale UL. piodori vita Platonis et Albini in dialogos Platonis introductio. Opera et studio
Guilelmi Etwall ... Oxonii e tvpographeo Clarendoniano, impensis J. et J.
Fletcher, bibliopolarum. 8vo, (14) + 157 + 32 + (79) pp.
1746
Contains the Ale 1-2, tr. Ficino, and the Hipparch., tr. Cornarius. both revised
*1671 0 ouxlOl8ou nXaxcovop xai Aucnou Xoyot eTZ'.xoepiot. ’Ex Oeaxpou iv ’Oljovta. by Etwall.
Edited by E. Bentham. In two parts, 8vo, 163 + 48 pp.
Graesse 5: 316; Brunet 4: 699; BNC 138: 872; BMC 191: 238; John Rylands
Contains (pt. 2, pp. 14-32) M.x. , [tr. Ficino]. 3: 1423; Carter, Hist. Oxf. Univ. Press 1: 593; NUC 461: 226.
NUC 461: 168; BMC 191: 209; Carter, Hist. Oxf. Univ. Press 1: 531; Graesse BAV R. G. Class. IV. 1222.
5: 318; Moss 2: 429-430.
1772
BL 1090.1.3(1)
174] A reprint of no. 172.
Graesse 5: 316; Brunet 4: 699
1752
1781
*1681 Opere di Monsignor Giovanni della Casa, seconda cdizione vcneta ac-
crc.sciiita e riordinafa. Venezia, Angiolo Pa.sinello, 1752. *175] Complete Works, tr. Ficino. Ax. , tr. Agricola. Spuria, tr. Corradi. Greek
text of Henri II Estienne. Zweibruecken: Societas Bipontina. Edited by
Contents (vol. .3, pp. 170-174) as in no. 160. Friedrich Christian Exter and Johann Embser.
792 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 793

nXdtTajv. Platonis philosophi quae extant graece, ad editionem Henrici Stephani 1800
accurate expressa, cum Marsilii Ficini interpretatione. Studiis Societatis Bipon-
tinae, Biponti ex typographia Societatis. 11 vols., 8vo. *181] A fourth edition of no. 166.
Graesse 5: 316; Brunet 4: 699: NUC 461: 226; BMC 191: 189.
Brunet 4: 695: Graesse 5: 314; BNC 138: 843; BNPL, c. 8; John Rvlands 3-
1423; Suppl. 1: LXII; BMC 191: 180. BL 58.m.2.

1782
1806
*176] Platonis dialogus Io sive De furore poetarum. ad tidem codicis Venetiani
veterumque editionum revocatus una cum Serrani interpretatione latina, editus *182] Plato de philosophia vel dialogus inscribitur ’Epaarrat sive Amatores. in
et animadversionibus illustratus a Mareo Guilielmo Mueller ... Hamburgi usum praelectionum ac scholarum. graece et latine, cum animadversionibus
sumptibus C. E. Bohn. 8vo, 23 + 127 pp. COL: Altonae ex officina Joannis criticis et exegeticis atque commentatione de ingenio philosophiae platonicae,
Davidis Adami Eckhardt. edidit D. Joannes Josephus Stutzmann. Erlangae, apud Gredy et Breuning.
8vo.
Contains Ion, tr. Serranus, revised by Mueller.
Amat., [tr. Ficino|.
Graesse 5: 318: BMC 191: 205; BNC 1.88: 898: BNPL. c. 64; NUC 461: 162.
BNC 138: 893; BNPL. c. 59; Graesse 5: 317.
BL 7 15.b. 11 — Marc.
BN Pans R.9198.
1786
177] Dialogi tres graece. Tertium edidit ... denuo recensuit emendavit ex- 1815
plicax it ... Johannes Fridericus Fischerus. Lipsiae sumptibus Heredes J. J. *183] Platonis Crito. Parisiis, ex tvpis Augusti Delalain. 12mo. 23 pp.
Mulleri. 8vo.
Cri. . [tr. Ficino].
Contains .4.x.. tr. Flieronvmus Wolf. Cf. no. 170.
BNC 138: 904; BNPL, c. 70; Graesse 5: 321.
BNC 48: 14: PCCBI 1: 414.
BN Paris, R .46818.
1787
*184] Platonis Phaedo. Parisiis, ex typis Augusti Delalain. 12mo, 31 pp.
*178] ©ouxiolSou nXd-ca>vo<; xai Auciou Aoyot eTtecacptoi. Etonae apud T. Pote. 8vo,
in two parts, (4) + 88 + 203 pp. A new edition of no. 167. Phd. , tr. Serranus.
Contains (pt. 2, pp. 13-31) M x ., tr. Ficino. BNC 138: 938; BNPL. c. 104.
Bodl. Godw. Pamphl. 2142 (3-4). BN Paris, R .46974.

1796 *185] Platonis Apologia Socratis ad mores spectans. Parisiis, ex typis Augusti
Delalain. 12mo, 44 pp.
179] Platonis Alcibiades I et II, e codice manuscripto Bibliothecae Divi Marci
emendati et cum versione Ficini ac adnotationibus clarissimorum interpretum Ap. , tr. Serranus.
suisque editi a M. Carolo Nuernberger ... Lipsiae, sumptibus BreitkopFii et
BNC 138: 887; BNPL, c. 53.
Haertelii. 8vo, 186 pp.
Brunet 4: 699; Graesse 5: 316; BNC 138: 875; BNPL, c. 41; Hoffmann 3: 126;
Suppl. 1: LXIII. 1816
Leiden UL—Paris BN. *186] Alcibiades primus sive De natura humana, obstetricus, sive emendae
veritatis causa institutus. Parisiis, ex typis Augusti Delalain. 12mo, 46 pp.
1798 .4/r. 1, tr. Serranus.
*180] A reprint of no. 178. Apud M. Pote et E. Williams. BNC 138: 876: BNPL, c. 42.
BMC 191: 209. BN Paris, R.46779.
794 P A R T III CA TA LO G S 795

187] Platonis Alcibiadt's secundus, sive de precatione, latine, ex versione Joan- 1834
nis Serrani. Parisiis, ex tvpis Augusti Delalain. 16mo, 16 pp. *193] nXaToov. Plato’s Apology of Socrates, Crito, and Phaedo, from the text
BNC 138: 880 (incorrect shelfmark); BNPL, c. 46 (incorrect shelfmark). of Bekker; with the Latin version of Ficinus; and Notes by Charles Stuart Stan­
ford ... Dublin, printed at the University Press for William Curry, Jun., and
Company. London, Simpkin and Marshal. 4to.
*188] Platonis Ion, version latine. Parisiis ex tvpis Augusti Delalain. 12mo., 10
pp. BMC 191: 189; NUC 461: 132.
Ion, tr. Serranus. BL 714.e.5.
Graesse 5: 321; BNC 138; 899; BNPL, c. 65.
194] Platonis Convivium latine, Marsilio Ficino interprete. Praemittuntur F. A.
* 1891 Platonis dialogi graece et latine, ex recensione Immanuelis Bekker. Wolfii introductio et Danielis Wvttenbachii argumentum, curante L. de Sinner.
Berolini. impensis G. Reineri |rtWOxonii apudj. Parker], 1816-1818. 3 vols. Parisiis apud Lodovicum Hachette, bibliopolam. 12mo.
in 3, 8vo. BNC 138: 926; BNPL, c. 92; Suppl. 1: LXIII.
Complete Works, tr. Ficino, taken from the original version printed in 1484 and
1491 .
1846-1873
BNC 138: 868; BNPL, c. 33; BMC 191; 180; Graesse 5: 315: Brunet 4: 695;
Suppl. 1: LXII: NUC 461: 112. *195] nXaxwv. Platonis opera ex recensione R. B. Hirschigii [et C. E. Chr.
Schneideri] graece et latine [tr. Ficino], cum scholiis et indicibus. Volumen
BL 8460.(1.24— Harvard UL— Leiden UL—Vale UL—Toronto UL. primum [-tertium]. Parisiis, editore Ambrosio Firmin-Didot, 1846-1873. 3
vols., 4to.
1818
*190] A second edition ol no. 182. Erlangae, apud C. Heyder. 1852
Graesse 5: 317. *196] A reprint of no. 193. London, Whittaker and Co.
Bodl. 8vo S.130mecL NUC 461: 132.

1826 Yale UL.

*1911 Platonis et quae vel Platonis esse feruntur vel Platonica solent comitari
scripta graece omnia ad codices manuscriptos recensuit variasque inde lectiones 1873
diligenter enotavit Immanuel Bekker ... Londinii excudebat A. J. Valpy, sump-
tibus Richardi Priestly, MDCCCXXVI. 8vo, 11 vols. *197] Epistolographi graece, recensuit ... Rodolphus Hercher. Parisiis, editore
Ambrosio Firmin-Didot, 1873. 4to.
Contains (vols. 10-11) Complete Works, tr. Ficino, in the original version. Ax.,
tr. Agricola. Spuria, tr. Corradi. Contains (pp. 492-528) Ep. I-XII, tr. Ficino. Ep. XIII, tr. Anonymus
Lugdunensis.
Graesse 5: 315; Brunet 4: 695; BNC 138: 845; BNPL, c. 10; NUC 461: 103;
Suppl. 1: LXII; BMC 191: 181.
Harvard UL— Leiden—Columbia UL—Toronto UL. 1880-1883
*198] A reprint of no. 195.
1833
*192] Platonis Euthvphro, latina interpretatio Marsilii Ficini, recognita et 1941
denuo edita, curante J. Genouille. Parisiis ex tvpis Augustini Delalain. 12mo, + 199] Platonis Phaedrus ex recensione R. G. Hirschigii, graece et latine. An­
20 pp.
napolis, Maryland, St. John’s Book Shop. 4to. A photographic reprint from no.
BNC 138: 894; BNPL, c. 60; Graesse 5:321. 195.
BN Paris R .4686.3. NUC 461: 181.
796 P A R T HI

DOUBTFUL AND SPURIOUS IMPRINTS

(200) Platonis Sophistes sive De eo quod vere esse dicitur, Petreio Tiara ... in-
terprete. Lovanii apud Martinum Rotarium 1533. 59 leaves, 8vo. See no. 84 c
Graesse 5: 321; Panzer 7: 270.1 18; Nijhoff 3: 137, no. 0996. EXTR AC TS
That this item is a ghost is clear from the dedication to Viglius Zuichemus, who
is addressed as “ consiliarius imperialis” , but who did not in fact become im­ Th is section lists longer La tin extracts from Plato made by Renaissance
perial counselor until 1547 (Allen 7: 56). The error of 1533 for 1552 can be trac­ translators and preserved in manuscripts, incunabula or c in q u e c e n tin e . It
ed back to Suffridus Petrus, D e scn p to n b u s Frisiae Dec. 13, col. 7. has not been possible, however, to investigate every one of the in­
numerable scholastic collections of a u c to n ta te s , d o g m a ta , sen ten tia e
(201) Platonis epistulae XIII, graece et latine, Petro Ramo interprete. Parisiis,
apud Wechelum, 1548. p h ilo s o p h o r u m , and similar items giving quotations from Plato. These are
in any case highly conservative, tending as a rule to draw their materials
Graesse 5: 317; Brunet 4: 702; NUC 461: 144.
from Calcidius, Apuleius, M acrobius, Aristotle, and other medieval
This imprint contains only the Greek text, but is sometimes found bound sources.1 Partial La tin versions are listed here only when I have been able
together with the Latin text published by David in 1549; see no. 76. (Communi­
to determine that they are neither extracts from complete versions made
cation of Mr. W. H. Bond.)
by know n translators, nor Platonic testimonia from ancient La tin
(202) The reprint of no. 60 indicated by NUC 570: 141, based on a copy held authors, but independent Renaissance versions.2
by St. John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota, is a cataloging error arising
from a defective copy of no. 60. (Communication of Richard Oliver, O. S. B.)
1. Anonvmus Vadcanus, E p istu la V I. Preserved in two manuscripts, both from
(203) The reprint of no. 95 indicated by NUC 461: 123 is a cataloging error aris­ northeastern Italy, s. XV 3/4 on paleographical grounds (communication of A.
ing from the catalog of the Harvard Law School Library. (Communication of C. de la Mare); probablv Ferrarese or Venetian, if " Kristeller s Rule” holds
Prof. Mary Louise Lord.) true.3 The translator was eager to find parallels between Plato and Christianity,
as may be inferred from the pseudo-Platonic letter appended to the end of the
(204) The reprint of no. I l l for the year 1581 listed by Graesse 5: 320 (followed Vatican manuscript, where a Trinitarian doctrine is put into Plato’s mouth.4
by Brunet 4: 698 and Suppl. 1: LXII) is not found in any modern catalog, and
is probably a confusion for no. 126.
1 For a tvpical specimen, see J. Hamesse, Les A uctontates A nstotelis: IJn flonlege medieval.
(205) nXdxcavoi; eVca exXexxoi StaXoyot. Platonis Septem Selecti Dialogi juxta edi- E tude histonque et edition critique (Louvain. 1974).
tionem Serrani. Dublinii e typographia Academiae, 1738. - Some of the more important manuscripts containing extracts from complete Renais­
sance translations are listed in Cat. A. Bruni’ s partial translations of the Phdr. and Srnp.
Despite the reference to “ Serranus’ edition” (see no. 124) this imprint contains and Polizianos partial version of the Chrm. are treated bibliographicallv in Cat. A and B.
the Greek text only of the E u th . , A p ., C r., P h d .. T hg., A m a t., and T h t., taken 3 See Cat. A, nos. 209. 350. ' ‘ Kristeller’s Rule” states that the provenance of a
from Estienne’s edition. Copies at Yale UL Gfp66 A738, Bodl. Vet. A4e 926, miscellaneous manuscript is presumptively that of the rarest text it contains. The rarest
and the Franciscan Library at Dun Mhuire, near Killinev. text in the Vatican MS must be the epitaph of Girolamo Guarini for Niccolo d ’ Este (p.
32), that of the Oxford manuscript, the letter of Valla to Francesco Barbaro (f. 77v),
(206) Thucydides, Platonis et Lvsiae orationes funebres. Etonae, 1790? which exists onlv in five manuscripts. The translation of the Plato letter is erroneously
assigned to Bruni in O. Besomi and M. Regoliosi, eds.. L aurentii Valle Epistole (Padua,
BMC 191: 209. 1984), p. 56.
4 Inc. Plato Hermie, Erasto et Crischo feliciter agere. Deorum aliquis mihi videtur op-
This imprint is certainly a fragment of no. 167, of which it forms the second timam vobis fortunam— des. quern si uere philosophemur, uidebimus omnes manifeste
part. pro uiribus beatorum hominum. The pseudo-Platonic letter, which does not match any
ancient or Byzantine pseudoepigraphum known to me (and so may be a Renaissance
forgery) runs as follows (B AV , Vat. lat. 6898, f. 104v): “ Plato Hermie Erasto et Cerisco
feliciter agere. Crebras ad uos litteras darnus illud prae ceteris summopere suadentcs, ut
ad vdearum sapientiam uere philosophantes propius accedatis. Sed nec istud quidem ad
felicitatem satis esse arbitremur. Est enim omnium encium causa, auctor praesentium et
futurorum deus atque ipsius auctoris pater et horum spiritus Deus, quorum munere et
singulari comprehensione immortalis omnis constat gloria uere philosophantium
beatorum hominum. quatn exquirere diligentissime opus est.”
 798 P A R T II I CATALOGS 799

2. Niccolo Sagundino. unidentified extract from Plato, in Marc. lat. XIII 62 on civic duties.38 The translation was probably intended as a translation of Aulus
(4418), (communication of P. O. Kristeller). On f. 163r is an excerpt in Greek. Gellius X .22.4-23, which had excerpted, in Greek, most of the same passage.
me. - c o v a o e p o v xpr\, vvhile on f. 166r is a Latin version of the same passage
(‘\Sententia pulcherrrima Socratis verbis celebrata Platonis” ): the translation is 7. Niccolo Leonico Tomeo, extract from the Timaeus. In 1525 Niccolo Leonico
attributed in the manuscript to Sagundino and is possibly in his hand, inc. Sa- Tomeo, professor of philosophy at Padua,9 published with the Venetian printer
pientem oportet ea quae in vita in dies accidunt. The manuscript was assembled Bernardino Vitali his Opuscula nuper in lucem aedita, which included a passage
after Sagundino’s death, but some of the texts in the volume reflect the ambience from the Timaeus (35A-36E) ‘‘De animorum generatione” , together with the
ot the Plato-Aristotle controversy, as has been pointed out by Monfasani.5 commentary of Proclus on the same passage ( = In Tim., ed. Diehl, pp.
119.29-292.29). The text was reprinted in Paris in 1530 and 1550.10
3. Theodore Gaza, lemmata from the Gorgias in a school commentary. A
sixteenth-century manuscript copied by Alessandro Sardi, now in Washington, 8. Joachim Perion. O .S.B . (1498/9-1559), partial translation of the Timaeus.1112
D C., Folger Library Va 123, preserves the text of Gaza’s school commentary In 1540 Perion produced a Greek edition of Plato's Timaeus together with the
on Plato's Gorgias. It was probably compiled during his first Ferrarese period, portions translated into Latin by Cicero a face\ two long passages, left un­
and is not of philosophical interest, according to a communication of John Mon- translated by Cicero, Perion himself rendered into Latin.18
tasani. But the lemmata ot the Gorgias are usually rendered into Latin, so as to
provide virtually a complete translation. The text has the title, Expositio in 9. Giulio della Rovere (?), extract trom the pseudo-Platonic Minos. Urbania,
panegyricum. id est in Gorgiarn Platonis. inc. -oXipou, inquit, x a i u.6.yr\q epaat. y p r i v a i , Bibl. Comunale VI. 14, is a printed text of Cicero’s De ojficus (Venice: Aldus,
d> HuixpaTep, outgj peTotAayxavetv. Servat in his et Plato quae in omnibus suis 1541) with the ex-libris ot Giulio della Rovere (the Cardinal ot Lrbino); at the
operibus tacere consueverit. A study and edition are being prepared bv Mon­ end are manuscript notes (s. XVI med.). including a passage from the Minos
fasani. (318E-319A), where Socrates teaches that one must sin neither against the gods
nor divine beings.13*
4. Bessarion, extracts from Plato's Phaedrus. It was noted in App. 18 that
Bessarion quoted extensively from Plato’s Phaedrus (and Symposium) in Calum­
niator 1.4. The passages trom the Phaedrus were later printed separately under the 8 See Iter 2: 278-279. The manuscript is a miscellaneous manuscript (s. XV-XVII) ot
title Platonis absolutissima oratoriaejacultatis praecepta. Bessarione interprete in a volume Y’enetian provenance (trom the collection ot Girolamo Contareni). F. lr-v has the Greek
containing works ot Rudolf Agricola entitled Epitome pnmi hbri de inventione dialec- text, inc. (ptXoaotpia yap tot ia-ztv, cl) Ecaxpatt?, ^apiev—des. xai apa izokko. ayaGd; tf. lv-2v
tica (Cologne: Io. Gymnicus, 1538);^ the item seems to have escaped previous gives the same passage in Latin translation, inc. Philosophia enim, o Socrates, laudabile
students of Bessarion's works. quiddam est, si quis illi temperate et in adolescentia studuerit— des. et alia bona quam
plurima sunt.
9 On Leonico see C H R P. p. 824, with references to the earlier literature; additional
5. Anonvmus Florentinus, extract from Laws IV (communication of Arthur
references may be found in vol. 1 supra, p. 98n.
Field). Florence, Archivio di Stato, Mediceo avanti il Principato, filza 21, no. 10 See L. Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 vols. (New York,
149 (1 tolio), s. XV 2/2, contains an anonymous translation from Laws IV, 1923-1958), 6: 593-599; BMC 191: 236; BNP1., c. 173; BNC 138: 931; P. L. Piz-
715E-716B, a passage on the providence of God and the folly of men: inc. Deus zamiglio, La raccolta Carlo Vigano (Brescia, 1979), p. 130, no. 259. In the 1525 edition,
prolecto quemadmodum antiquus sermo testatur, continens principium—des. the texts run as follows: (ff. LXXV verso-LXXVI verso) Nicolai Leonici Thomaei con-
lunditusque evertit. The version does not match the corresponding passage in versio ex Timaeo Platonis de animorum generatione cum Procli Litii explicatione, me.
Ficino s or Trebizond’s translations.7 Ex ea substantia quae individua et semper eadem similisque est—des. universum tempus
divinum dedit exordium; (ff. LXXVIIr-CXXXIXv) Caput primum de constitutione
6. Anonvmus Marcianus, extract from the Gorgias. Marc. lat. XI 142 (6675) animae [ex Procli commentario], inc. In primis quidem dicere oportet—des. sapientiam
contains on ff. lr-2v (s. XV ex.) the famous passage from the speech of Callicles uero ab intellectu, anima autem ab unica omnium causas.
11 On Perion see Cat. E, no. 12.
(484C-486D) attacking philosophy as a pursuit which renders men unfit to take 12 ’Ex IlXatcavoi; Tipaiou xpfjpa to ~.os Ktxepovop Ilepi 7tdv-top fkflXiq) crupcpaivouv. Ex
Platonis Timaeo particula, Ciceronis de universitate libro respondens. Qui duo hbri inter se coniuncti
et respondentes, nunc pnmum opera loachimi Penonn ... proferuntur in lucem. Parisiis, Colinaeus
et Tiletanus, 1540 [with Perion’s De optima genere interpretandi]. The text was reprinted in
3 "A Philosophical Text of Andronicus Callistus Misattributed to Nicolaus Secun- Basel [n.d., n. pr.], probably in the same year (with the De optimo genere interpretandi) and
dinus,” in Renaissance Studies in Honor of Craig Hugh Smyth (Florence, 1985), pp. 395-406 reprinted again in Basel in 1542 by Robert Winter with Perion’s translation of Aristotle's
and plate. For the literature on Sagundino, see King, pp. 427-429. Ethics. See BNC 138: 929; STC France, p. 354; John Rylands, 3: 1424; Adams II. P.147
" See Index Aurehensis 101.758. There is a copy of this imprint at the British Museum. 2; BMC 191: 236.
/ rehizond (BAY, V'at. lat. 2062, I. 47r): “Deus, o vm, sicut sermo etiam priscus 13 See Iter, ts 8777, which gives the inc. graece. eyca 5r| aoi ipoo—des. xai ptapdrca-cov 6
(licit, cum principium et finem et medium omnium rerum teneat—simul evertit.” Piano reovrjpo<; inc. latine. Ego sane tibi dicam ne haec tu, ut multi, impie agas— des. sed omnium
( Platonis opera 1491. 1. 283r): ‘Deus, o vm, sicut antiquus sermo testatur, principium sacratissimum est homo bonus, profanissimum malus. This matches neither the incipit
finem et media re rum omnium continens—simul evertit.” of Ficino’s translation (Platonis opera 1491, 1. I9rb, inc. Dicam ne tu ut alii multi
 800 P A R T III CATALOGS 801

10. Bonifacius Amerbach (1495-1562), verse translation of the mvth irom the 14. Anonymus Lugdunensis, Epistula XIII. - The anonymous editor of
Protagoras (320D ff.). Preserved in Basel, Oeffentliche Bibliothek der Univer- Vincente’s 1557 edition of Ficino’s Platonis opera omnia restored to the collection
sitat, MS C VI a 54, If. 300r-303r, inc. Tempus erat quo nata 1'oret iarn turba of Plato’s Epistulae the spurious thirteenth letter which had been dropped in
deorum. The attribution to Amerbach is suggested by Kristeller (Iter ts 6287) Bruni’s and Ficino's versions.17

11. Adolt Occo II (1494-1572), an extract from the Theaetetus (172C-177C). Oc- 15. Filippo Sassetti, sentences from the Phaedrus in Greek with Latin versions,
co s translation of the famous passage on the superiority of philosophical to apparently by Sassetti, inc. (230A) yeXoiov 8r| pot cpaivexai, xouxo ext ayvoouvxa,
rhetorical discourse was printed first in 1552 with his translation of Pletho’s Ileci xa aXXoxpta <jxa>7teiv. Ridiculum sane puto cum mea ipse ignorem, aliena
ape-cov, and reprinted twice in the Vitae et mortis compendium edited by Valentin perscrutari. Preserved in Rice. 60, If. 61v-62v. (Cart., misc., s. XVI ex., 62
Thilo.14 The 1552 imprint has Occo’s preface to Jerome Fugger, me. Cum leaves, autograph. Fly-leaf: “ Movocxtxa Lapini. Filippi Saxetti xxfjjioc.” )
Georgii Plethonis qui alio nomine Gemistus dicitur (dated “ Ex Vindelicorum
Augusta anno salutis MDLII Calendas Januarias''). 16. Joachim Camerarius, the Myth of Er, from Republic -Y.18 Printed together
with Hieronymus Wolf’s edition of Epictetus and Cebes (Cologne, 1595) and
12. Anonymus Hungaricus, Epistula IX. A Greek epistolatory collection with reprinted in Rotterdam (1654) and Leiden (1657); Camerarius’ title is Sortitus
Latin translations, published in a rare Hungarian imprint, contains an anonv- animarum ex Eris Pamphylu narratwne de fine "oXtxtxcLv L graece, cum versione
mous version ol Epistula IX which matches no known translation or redaction.15 latina Ioachimi Camerarii.19

13. Michael Neander, two extracts from the Axiochus (366B-367C, 371A-372A) 17. Franciscus Nansius, partial translation of the Xleno, autograph, written into
and one from the Gorgias (523A-526D). Neander included the passages in a the margins of a quarto schooltext of the Meno, in Greek, printed at Paris (ca.
tlorilegium ol Greek texts in verse and prose on moral and religious topics, pro­ 1550). The imprint is now Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, BPG 5.20
viding Latin translations of his own on the facing page.16 The book was printed The translation begins at 72A (inc. noXXrj yi xtvt euxuxta totxa xexpr]a0at, d>
by Oporinus at Basel in 1556. Mevcov = Meno, videor usus esse magna quadam felicitate) and continues with
interruptions to the end; the translation is interspersed with numerous annota­
prophana loqueris—immo sacratissimurn omnium est vir bonus, prophanissimum contra tions, primarily philological in character.
vir malus), nor that of Grynaeus’ revision.
,4 Georgius Gemistus Pletho. Elegans ac brevis quattuor virtutum explicatio ... Adolpho Occone 18. Johann Georg Herwart, extracts from Ep. I-XIII in Greek and Latin. Pre­
interprete. Basileae excudebat Joannes Oporinus. (14)+ 127 pp., 8vo. The relevant work served in Munich, Universitatsbibliothek Fol. 692, ff. 348r-351r (cart., misc.,
is on pp. 30-44, with the title "De moribus philosophorum locus ex Platonis Theaeteto ”, ss. XVI ex.—XVII in., 444 leaves). See Iter 3: 649; further information kindly
inc. Socr. Nos vero, o Theodore, e disputatione in disputadonem e minore in maiorem
supplied by Dr. Sigrid Kraemer.
incidimus. The Greek text follows on pp. 66-77. (Copies at BL, Vienna ONB; Berlin SB;
Ratsbuecherei Lueneburg.) For the later reprints, see Cat. B, nos. 122, 130. On Occo,
see Jacob Brucker, Historia vitae Adolphorum Occonum (Leipzig, 1734) [copy at Basel UB];
Schottenloher 2: 99; his correspondence with Basilius II Amerbach preserved in Basel 17 See Cat. B, no. 96 for a description of the edition and App. 18B.
UB; many of his books and papers are now in the Munich SB. 18 On Camerarius, see the biobibliographical note in Cat. E, no. 3.
15 Venustissimae quaedam Graecae epistolae ex diversis autonbus delectae. Coronae [Brasso, 19 There is a copy of the 1595 edition at the Bodleian Library, 8vo E 16 Art. Seld.
Hungary] apud Valentin Wagner, 1555. Mentioned in Regi Magyarorszagi Nyomlatvanyok 20 See CPM A 1: 15, note 3; K. A. de Meyier, Codd. Bibl. Publ. Graeci (Leiden, 1965),
(Res Litteranae Hunganae) (Budapest, 1971), pp. 172-173, no. 123. According to a commu­ p. 9; Iter ts 4873E. On Nansius (d. 1595) see E. Hulshoff Pol, "Franciscus Nansius und
nication ol Dr. Lidia Ferenezv of the National Szechenyi Library in Budapest, the item seine Handschriften, in Miniatures, scripts, collections. Essays presented to G. '/. Lieftinck
contains Ep. IX , tr. anon, inc. Venere ad nos Archippus et Philonides attuleruntque ac- (Amsterdam, 1976), 4: 79-102, with references to the earlier literature.
ceptam abs te epistolam cum mandatis tuis.
16 Anthologicum Graecolatinum, hoc est, insigniores flores seu sententiae decerptae ex Hesiodo.
Theogmde, Pythagora, Phocyhde, Arato, et Theocnto ... H is accesserunt praeterea etiam alii tres libelli
ex scnptis Platonis, Xenophontis, Plutarchi et Justini martyris et philosophi con/ecti, omnes argumenti
antiquissimi et lucundissimi. Per Michaelem Neandrum Sorauiensem ... Basileae, per Ioannem
Oporinum. Colophon: “ Basileae ex officina Ioannis Oporini anno salutis humanae
MDLVI mense Augusto. ” 8vo, 465 + (23) pp. [Copy at Harvard UL, Prov. 185.1. | The
relevant items are as follows: (pp. 400-405) Prodici narratio de miseria vitae humanae
ex Platonis Axiocho, me. Socr. De me tu quidem certe, Axioche, non vere iudicas, sed
in eadem es opinione qua vulgus Atheniensium—des. Post precadonem noctu fuisse mor-
tuos. (pp. 405-409) Gobrvae narratio de animarum immortalitate ex Platonis Axiocho.
inc. Socr. Aliam tibi labulam, si placet, exponam, quarn mihi Gobrvas vir sapientissimus
narravit—des. ut apud superos uel apud inferos sis futurus beatus qui caste integreque
uixeris. The translations do not match any ol the earlier translations ol these two works.
 CATALOGS 803

Alcibiades //w hich were never printed but which survived among his papers. But
efforts to relocate these papers have not been successful.7*
D
P E R D I T A , D U B IA , S P U R I A Dubia et Spuria
1. Aurispa, Republic. In a letter of the Sicilian humanist Giovanni Campiano
This section lists lost, doubtful or spurious Latin translations of Plato to Giovanni Aurispa, the former says he has heard a rumor (Jama ad nos perfertur)
about “ a book of the Politics" which “ they say” (ut aiunt) Aurispa has translated
made or thought to have been made du rin g the period 1400-1600. U n d e r
into Latin. Even if this book does indeed refer to Plato’s Republic, which Sab-
dubia and spuria I list only items which have led to questions or badini declares to be the case, there is no evidence that Aurispa did in fact make
misunderstandings in the secondary literature; there are of course verv such a translation.3*
many errors of attribution in inventories and printed catalogues which
I have not troubled to correct individually.1 2. Pier Candido Decembrio, supposed translation of the Sophist. See App. 8A.

3. Pletho, Commentary on Laws I. Reported in Fabricius,9 this is obviously a

Perdita confusion with Pletho’s own Nopoi, fragments of which survive.10
1. Palla Strozzi, three unspecified translations. Giulio Negri, in his Istona degli
scrittori fiorentini (Ferrara, 1722). p. 443, mentions that Palla Strozzi, a friend 4. Argyropoulos, explication of the Meno. A report by Pierfilippo Pandolfini (in
a letter to Donato Acciaiuoli) of an afternoon during which Argyropoulos infor­
and contemporary of Bruni, translated several “ sermoni” of Plato. Negri gives
mally explained Plato’s Meno has, in some of the secondary literature, assumed
as his source the Strozzi-Uguccioni papers, now in the Archivio di Stato in
the proportions of a full translation and commentary on that text. The report
Florence. The source turns out to be some sixteenth-century extracts made by
an unknown hand irom the Ricordi of Giovanni Rucellai, wherein nothing more has been reduced to its proper dimensions by Arthur Field.11
is recorded than that Strozzi made four unpolished versions from Plato;2 these
versions have not to my knowledge survived.
7 Dr. P. F. J. Obbema of the Leiden University Library kindly confirmed for me that
Tiara’s papers are not now preserved in that collection. (Tiara was formerly rector of the
2. Niccolo Perotti, translation of Alcibiades II. Bartolomeo Fazio in his De viris University of Leiden.) A MS translation by Tiara of the Alcibiades [sic] is also mentioned
illustribuP mentions that Perotti made a translation of Plato’s De precatione, surely in J. H. Zedler, Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschaften und Kuenste. vol. 44 (Leipzig, 1745),
to be identified with the pseudo-Platonic Alcibiades II, which has the subtitle Flepl cols. 3-4. I have not been able to see S. Galama, Petreius Tiara (Bolsward, 1964).
-poaeuxT)?. This claim is believable, as Perotti’s Cornucopia has a number of ex­ 3 Carteggio di Giovanni Aurispa. ed. R. Sabbadini, Fonti per la storia d'Italia, 70 (Rome,
cerpts from this text, which do not correspond to the excerpts found in the Latin 1931), pp. 9-10 (and note 2). See also A. Franceschini, Giov. Aurispa e la sua bibl. (Padua,
version of the Calumniator for which Perotti was responsible.+ 1976), p. 61, no. 19, who would identify the reference with Aurispa’s copy (?) of
Cassarino’s version of the Republic (Cat. A, no. 63). But this is chronologically impos­
3. Petreius Tiara. Fabricius reports5 that Petreius Tiara, otherwise known for sible, as Campiano’s letter is from the 1420s.
9 Bibliotheca Graeca (1793), 3: 104: “ Georgii Gemistii in I De legibus [Platonis]” .
his translation of the Sophistp also prepared translations of the Euthyphro and 10 Trade des lots, ed. C. Alexandre (Paris, 1858; repr. Amsterdam, 1966).
11 “John Argyropoulos and the Secret Teachings of Plato” , in Supplementum Festivum.
pp. 322-324.

1 Many of these mistakes are corrected implicitly in Cats. A and B, if not already in
Kristeller's Iter.
- ASF, Carte Strozzi-Uguccione 3a ser., 86, Cart. s. XVI, volume entitled “ Da il
libro di diverse memorie e affari di Giovanni di Pagolo di Messer Pagolo Rucellai
esistente oggi in casa di Signore Pagolo di Giovanni Rucellai.’’ F. 289r has the note:
“ Qui a presso faro chopia dell’opere o vero libri che messer Palla di Nofri Strozzi tralato
cli Grecho in Latino.” Then follows a list, and on f. 290r, “ Sermone di Platone non chor-
retto” (repeated thrice more). The zihaldone from which this collection was made has been
published by A. Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo zihaldone, v ol. I (London, 1960); the rele­
vant passage is on p. 64.
' Ld. L. Mehus, (Florence, 1745), p. 14; see Kristeller (1985), p. 311 and note 51.
1 See vol. 1, p. 218n.
1 Bibliotheca Graeca (1793), 3: 71, 84.
" See Cat. B, no. 84, (200); on Tiara, see Cat. F, no. 20.
 CATALOGS 805

Henry of Mecklenburg and later Stadtartz in Zwickau; translated many works

from Greek medical writers and the Greek Fathers. His new translation of the
E complete Plato of 1561 was made from Aldus' 1513 editio pnnceps of the Greek
B IO B IB L IO G R A PH IC A L N O T E O N Plato (based on MSS of the “ T ” family), which he then collated with the
SIX T E E N T H -C E N T U R Y T R A N SL A T O R S Lobkovicz MS (a copy of “ W” ) brought from Milan to Bohemia at the end of
the fifteenth century.61Cornarius accompanied his new translation with so-called
Eclogues, i.e., philological notes on the text largely consisting of citations from
1. Rudolf Agricola (1444-1485), well-known German humanist, translated the the Lobkovicz MS (now Prague SK CSR Roudnice VI Fa 1). These notes were
pseudo-Platonic Ax. while organist at the court of Duke Ercole I d’Este (ca. thought worthy of reprinting bvjoh. Fr. Fischer in the eighteenth century (Iani
1474). See COE 1: 15-17 with further bibliography; Garin (1979), pp. 404-406, Cornaru eclogae in dialogos Platoms omnes nunc pnmum separatim editae [Leipzig,
and F. Adelmann, Dietrich von Phemgen. Humanist und Staatsmann (Munich, 1981), 1771]). On Cornarius see Schottenloher 1: 133; CTC 2\ 118 and 4: 176; COE
passim; CHRP. p. 806 with further bibliography; F. Akkermann and A. J. 1: 339-340; Amerbach Korrespondenz 3: 360-363; for the literature on the
Vanderjagt, eds., Rodolphus Agricola Phnsius: Proc. of the Int’l ConJ. at the Univ. of Lobkovicz MS, see E. Jeauneau. ''Plato apud Bohemos,” Mediaeval Studies 41
Groningen (Leiden, 1988). (1979): 179-181.
2. Jacques Bourle or Burlaeus (1523-1586), poet, theologian, and anti-Protestant 7. Sebastiano Corradi (c. 1510-1556), humanist and classical scholar, educated in
polemicist; doctor of the Sorbonne in 1568; author of a logic textbook Elementa Venice, held the chair of humanities at Reggio Emilia (1540) and later at
logicae (1565). See Dictionnaire de biographie francaise, 16 vols. to date (Paris, Bologna; edited Valerius Maximus and commented on Vergil and Cicero. See
1933-), 6: 1515. DBI 29: 322-323; G. Zaccagnini, Stona dello Studio di Bologna, ad indicem.
3. Joachim Cameranus the Elder (1500-1574), German humanist and classical 8. Joannes Dugo Philomus (fl. 1549) of Walperskirch in Bavaria. His translation
scholar, associate of Melanchthon, Erasmus and Hieronymus Wolf. In addition of the Ax., which like Ficino he attributed to Xenocrates, was published bv
to his translations and explicationes of the Virt., Just., and Clit., he also translated Oporinus in 1553. See Schottenloher 1: 204.
the "Mvth of Er” from Rep. X and wrote a short commentary on the Platonic
Number {Rep. VHP) which drew upon Proclus and Theon of Srnvrna (cf. Epist. 9. Conradus Gesnerus (1516-1565), famous polymath of Zurich; wrote on biology,
Jam. libn VI (Frankfurt, 1583], pp. 255f., 478-481, 525). See COE 1: 247-248; medicine, theology, law, philosophy; taught Greek at Lausanne before becom­
CTC 3: 118, 131; Schottenloher 1: 104; F. Baron, ed., Joachim Camerarius: ing professor of medicine in Zurich. His translation of Stobaeus included
Beitraege zur Geschichte der Humanismus im Zeitalter der Reformation (Munich, 1978); renderings of the pseudoplatonic Virt. and Just.. probably because these writings
numerous unedited letters in UB Basel. are handed down with the Greek text of Stobaeus in a number of MSS. See
Schottenloher 1: 289; CTC 2: 307; H. Widmann, ‘‘Konrad Gesner, 1516-1565”
4. Giovanni Battista Camozzi or Camotius (1515-1581), studied under Lud. Buc- in Alemannisches Jahrbuch, 1966167 (1969), pp. 219-256; and generally the journal
caferreus. taught philosophy and medicine at the universities of Bologna, Gesnerus (Aarau, Switzerland, 1943-).
Macerata and Rome; translated Psellus and some of the Greek Fathers, edited
the Aldina minora of Aristotle (Venice, 1551-53), commented on Theophrastus. 10. Reinhold Lange or Reinerus Langius of Bremen (tl. 1588), master, later the rec­
See DBI 17: 297-298; CTC 1: 100 and 4: 185; C. B. Schmitt, Aristotle in the Re­ tor of the gymnasium at Korbach in Waldeck. He subsequently held various of*-
naissance (Cambridge, Mass., 1984), pp. 37, 39, 138. tices in that city, including that of Biirgermeister. In 1593 he published a Latin
grammar. An unorthodox Ramist, he also published versions of the Amat., with
5. Joannes Casae, better known as Mons. Giovanni Della Casa (1503-1556), Italian “ logical” notes, together with notes by his father-in-law, the more distinguished
and Neolatin poet and writer on manners. His youthful translation of Plato s Bernhard Cop, Professor of Medicine at Marburg. On Lange, see Allgemeine
Mx. was onlv recovered at the end of the seventeenth century by the learned G. Deutsche Biographie 17 (Leipzig, 1883), p. 650, and Joecher, Ergaenzungsband 3:
B. Casotti and was printed three times in the eighteenth century, after which 1237; on Cop, see Schottenloher 1: 132, Allgemeine Deutsche Biogr. 4 (1876), pp.
it was dropped from editions of his opere. See A. Santuosso, Bibliography of Giovan­ 470-471; UB Marburg, MS 801 and UB Basel, MS M .g.III, 4-6.
ni Della Casa: Books, Readers and Critics 1537-1975 (Florence, 1979) and idem, Vita
di Giovanni Della Casa (Rome, 1978); K. Ley, Die “scienza civile” des Giov. Della
Casa: Literatur als Gesellschaftskunst in der Gegenreformation (Heidelberg, 1984).
1 See UB Basel, MS Frev-Grynaeus II.8. f. 433r (letter of Cornarius to Johann Her-
6. Janus Cornarius or Johann Hainpol (1500-1558), a master at Wittenberg during wagen, dated 1 September 1557): “ Habeo Platoneru absoluturn Latinum a me factum
the earlv 1520s where he came under the influence of Luther and Melanchthon: totum, quantum eius aeditum est ab Aldo. adhibito rnanuscripto exemplari Boemico. In
hoc opus scripsi Belugas decent, ita ut in singulas novern Platonis dialogorum tctralogias.
around 1428/29 worked as an editor of Greek medical texts for Froben in Basel;
unam eclogam scripserirn, et decimam in ea quae notha Platoni addita sunt. Hoc opus
taught at the universities of Rostock, Marburg, and Jena; physician to Prince centum et septuaginta aureis aestimo. nee minori preeio vendere consritui.”
806 PART in CATALOGS 807

11. Vincentius Obsopoeus (d. 1539), who belonged to the circle of Willibald Pir- the Rep. in his collection (Cat. A, no. 376). See CTC 2: 36; E. Novotny, Joh.
ckheimer (q. v.), translated and edited various works of Greek literature in addi­ Sambucus ... Leben und Werk (Dr. phil. diss. Vienna, 1975); letters at Harvard
tion to some of the writings of Luther. He was the author of Victoria Bacchi siue UL, Lat. 225 and Lat. 307.
De arte bibendi hbri tres, a work that no doubt shows Lutheran inlluence. His edi­
18. Nicolaus Scutellius Tridentinus, O. E. S. A. (d. 1542), an associate ot Giles ot
tion of the works of Lucian contained his translation of the pseudoplatonic Hal­
Viterbo, translated a number of Neoplatonic texts, including Pletho's De differen-
cyon]; he was evidently the first Western humanist to assign this work to Lucian.
tiis, as well as the pseudoplatonic De tusto. See P. O. Kristeller, Medieval Aspects
See COE 2: 34 and O. Mazal in Gutenberg Jahrbuch (1966): 182-191.
oj Renaissance Learning, ed. E. P. Mahoney (Durham. N. C., 1974), p. 152, with
further bibliography; see also H. D. Saffrev in BHR 21 (1959): 161, note 2, and
12. Joachim Penon, O. S. B. (14-98/99-1559), French humanist and theologian, J. Whittaker in Scriptorium 31 (1977): 212-239, for Platonica annotated or copied
famous translator of Aristotle and opponent of Ramus. Professor of theology at
by him.
Paris after 1542. See CHRP, p. 831 et passim; Schmitt, Aristotle and the Renais­
sance. passim, with references to the earlier literature. 19. Joannes Serranus or Jean de Serres (1540-98), French humanist and historian.
Huguenot controversialist, rector of the Calvinist academies in Lausanne and
13. Willibald Pirckheimer of Nuernberg (1470-1530), humanist, diplomat, and Nimes. In 1578 Serranus produced, together with Henri II Estienne, the most
patron of literature, correspondent of Erasmus and Beatus Rhenanus, later famous of all editions of Plato. Its fame, however, owed more to the excellence
religious controversialist. Translator of Greek classics into Latin and German, of Stephanus’ Greek text than to the value of Serranus’ translation; and the in­
editor of Fulgentius. See COE 3: 90-94 with further bibliography; the fullest terpretation of the dialogues Serranus provided with his version, though the
treatment of his Plato translations is in N. Holzberg, Willibald Pirckheimer: most ambitious attempt to displace Ficino’s Plato in the early modern period,
Griechischer Humamsmus in Deutschland (Munich. 1981). did not meet with favor from the learned. See Tigerstedt, pp. 39-43; Ch. Dar-
dier, “Jean de Serres,’’ Revue histonque 22 (1883): 291-328, and 23 (1884):
14. Petrus Ramus or Pierre de la Ramee (1515-1572). famous humanist, anti- 28-76; O. Reverdin. “ Le Platon d’Henri Estienne,” Museum Helveticurn 13
Aristotelian. lecturer at the College Rovale in Paris. His edition of Plato's Letters (1956): 239-50. MS correspondence in UB Basel.
with “ dialectical summaries” was first published in 1549: there is also a copy
20. Petreius Tiara (1514-1588) of Friesland, taught classics at the gymnasium ot
of Wechel's edition of the Greek text (Paris, 1548) which supposedly contains
Douai, later taught at Franeker and ended his career as the rector ot the Univer­
notes from his lectures on that text (BL 31.h.22: see BMC 191: 242). See W.
sity of Leiden. He published a translation of Euripides’ Medea (1543) and there
Ong, Ramus. Method. and the Decay of Dialogue (Cambridge, Mass., 1958; repr.
survive in MS translations from the Greek Anthology (Leiden BPG 25, vol.
1983), with further bibliography.
VII), Pythagoras, and paraphrases of Hippocrates (Iter 3: 201); see also p. 802,
above. See S. Galama, Petreius Tiara (Bolsward, 1964) [not seen].
15. Hermannus Raianus Welsdalius (d. 1573), ordinarius professor of medicine at
the University of Cologne, 1566-1573. Took an M. A. and a baccalaureate of 21. Petrus Victorius or Pier Vetton (1499-1585), Florentine humanist and classical
medicine at the University of Paris. Translated works of Aristotle and edited the scholar. Professor of Latin at Florentine Studio (1538); later protessor ol Greek
Dialectica of Joannes Caesarius (Venice, 1559). Raianus’ translation of the Ax. (1543) and moral philosophy (1548). Edited and commented on Aristotle and
served as the basis for the English version (1592) of Edmund Spenser; see F. M. Cicero. In addition to his unpublished translation ot Plato’s Lysis, Vettori was
Padelford. ed.. The Axiochus oj Plato Translated by Edmund Spenser (Baltimore. also responsible for the 1551 Giunta edition of the same text ( BMC 191: 208).
Md., 1934). See also C. H. Lohr, “ Renaissance Latin Aristotle Commentaries, See CHRP, pp. 840-841, with references to the earlier literature.
Authors Pi-Sm,” RQ 33 (1980): 675-676.
22. Theodorus Vietor (1567-1644), matr. Marburg, rector of the gymnasium at
Cassel (1585), later (1595) ordinarius professor of Greek at Marburg; edited
16. Esrom Rudiger (1523-1591) of Bamberg, son-in-law of Joachim Camerarius,
Plutarch’s De educatione puerorum and translated Homer’s Odyssey into Latin. See
master at Leipzig; later Rector of the school at Zwickau and Professor of Greek
Joecher 4: 1590-1591; Joh. Heinrich Zedler, Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschajten
and Philosophy at Wittenberg. Translated Synesius and Proclus as well as
und Kuenste, vol. 48 (Leipzig, 1746), cols. 1189-1190.
Plato’s Ap.\ lectured on Aristophanes. See Joecher 3: 2294-5; Schottenloher 2:
192; correspondence at UB Leiden, Codd. Papenbroekiani Pap. 2 and UB 23. Hieronymus Wolf (1516-1580), famous classical scholar, editor, and one ol
Basel, MS G.1.25, Dresden LB, MS C 65; see also Iter 3, ad indicem. the founders of Byzantine studies; student of Meianchthon and Camerarius,
matr. Basel 1548/49 (Basler Rektoratsmatnkel J.180r.7: MS at UB Basel),
17. Joannes Sambucus or Zsamboky (1531-1584), Hungarian classical scholar and thereafter secretary and librarian to Johann Jakob Fugger, headmaster ot the
bibliophile. Studied classics at Vienna, Leipzig, Wittenberg and Strasbourg gymnasium of St. Anna in Augsburg. Most famous for his editions ot Byzantine
under Camerarius. Amerbach, Meianchthon and Sturm; at Paris he studied historians and the Attic orators, Wolf also edited Epictetus (1561) and
with Ramus, Dorat, Turnebe; around 1555 he studied medicine in Padua. translated, anonymously, the pseudoplatonic Ax. See CTC 2: 90 and 6: 9; R.
Many of the MSS he collected are now at the ONB in Vienna. He may himself Pfeiffer, History oj Classical Scholarship, 1300-1850 (Oxford, 1976): 139-140, with
have copied the Latin translation of Ficino into the margins of a Creek MS ot references to the earlier literature.
 CATALOGS 809

20. Audiui ex Archedemo te censere non solum me sed familiares etiarn

meos nihil rnali aduersus te: Ep. 2, tr. Brunus
21. Audiui ex Archedemo te censere non solum me sed familiares etiam
F
meos praeter unicum Dionem: Ep. 2, tr. Ficinus (FGLT)
TABULA IN IT IO R U M 22. Belli et pugnae oportere aiunt o Socrates: Cry., tr. Brunus
23. Care Phaedre quonam et unde: Phclr., tr. Cornarius
T he following table gives in alphabetical order the incipits of Renaissance 24. Commentarios mihi de te allatos mirum: Ep. 12, tr. Cornarius
Latin translations of Plato, i.e., those made between 1400 and 1600. In ­ 25. Cuiusmodi uox aures nostras accessit: Hale., tr. Obsopoeus
26. Cum ad Cynosarges exirem et iam ad Ilissum: Ax., tr. Cornarius
cluded are all complete versions of any of the thirty-six works in the nine 27. Cum ad Cynosarges exirem iamque Ilissem: Ax., tr. Pirckheimer
Thrasyllan tetralogies, the six Spuria, the Definitiones and the Halcyon. (For 28. Cum ad Peiraeum heri descendissem: Rep. , tr. P. C. Decembrius
incipits of partial versions, see Cat. C.) Spelling has been modernized 29. Cum domo e Clazomenis Athenas profecti essemus: Prm. . tr. Ficinus
throughout and the names of interlocutors have been omitted. Some of (FGLT)
the incipits to Ficino’s translations in one or another of its sixteenth- 30. Cum domo e Clazomenis Athenas uenissemus apud forum: Prm., tr.
Trapezuntius
century redactions vary from the incipits of the original 1484 versions;
31. Cum domo ex Clazomenis Athenas uenissemus in foro: P rm . , tr. Cor­
the incipits to Ficino’s versions are therefore followed by key letters in narius
parentheses indicating the redaction or redactions to which the incipit 32. Cum ego per id temporis quo tarn diu apud uos: Ep. 1, tr. Philelphus
corresponds. T h e key letters indicate the following redactions (for which 33. Cum ego tanto tempore apud uos uersatus sim: Ep. 1. tr. Cornarius
see further App. 18B): 34. Cum ex Academia Lyceum uersus per ipsa suburbia: Ly.. tr. Ficinus
F — Ficino’s original 1484 version (F)
35. Cum ex Athenis decederem ad sepulcrorum locum: Tv.. tr. Cincius
G — Simon G r v n a e u s’ 1532 revision 36. Cum forte ego [ergo T\ et Eryxias Stirieus in porticu Iouis: Erx.. tr.
L — T he 1557 revision of the A nonym us Lugdunensis Corradus
T — Stephanus T r e m u la e u s ’ 1592 revision. 37. Cum forte fortuna in Iouis Liberatoris: Erx., tr. Pirckheimer
It should be noted that there are no sixteenth-century revisions of 38. Cum in Cynosarges iturus ad Illissum peruenissem: Ax., tr. Wolfius
39. Cum in Cynosarges proficiscendi causa: Ax., tr. Serranus
Ficino’s translations of the Axiochus (which he attributed to Xenocrates) 40. Cum in Cynosarges proficiscens ad Illissum uenissem: Tv., tr.
or of the Dejinitwnes (attributed to Speusippus). Perionius
41. Cum in Cynosarges proficiscerer et Illisso iam applicarem: Tv., tr.
Ficinus
1. Accepi ab Archedemo te in ea esse sententia: Ep. 2, tr. Serranus
42. Cum in Cynosarges uenissem abiremque Illissum: Ax., tr. Rinuccius
2. Ad id de quo inter nos consensimus: Epin.. tr. Cornarius
43. Cum in porticu Iouis Eleutherii idest Liberatoris: Erx., tr. Cassarinus
3. Admirari puto te fili Cliniae: Ale. 1, tr. Cornarius
44. Cum iter ad Cynosarges gymnasium meum instituissem: Tv., tr.
4. Admirari te arbitror fili Cliniae: Ale. 1, tr. Serranus
Raianus
5. Adsumus attemperato gradu Socrates: Sph., tr. Tiara
45. Cur hoc tempore uenisti Crito? Nonne summum adhuc: Cn. , tr.
6. Aeternitas est quae per omne tempus: Def., tr. Corradus
Serranus
7. Aeternum illud est quod omne tempore: Def., tr. Pirckheimer
46. Curnam hac hora uenisti o Crito? An non ualde adhuc: Cn., tr.
8. A foro an unde Menexenus?—A foro Socrates: M x., tr. Casae
Ficinus (F)
9. Age docerine uirtus potest an doceri: V ir t. , tr. Pirckheimer
47. Cur hac hora uenisti, o Crito? An non ualde adhuc: Cn. , tr. Ficinus
10. Arbitror equidem manifestam esse meam: Ep. 4, tr. Cornarius
11. Archippi ac Philonidis familiares ad nos: Ep. 9, tr. Philelphus (GL)
48. Cur hac hora uenisti, o Crito? Nonne multum mane: Cn., tr. Ficinus
12. Archippus et Philonides ad uos uenerunt: Ep. 9, tr. Ramus
13. Audio Dionem te uti maxime: Ep. 10, tr. Serranus (T )
49. Cur nunc uenisti o Crito aut non adhuc mane est: Cn., tr. Cornarius
14. Audio te ante alios et nunc familiarem: Ep. 10, tr. Ficinus (FGLT)
50. Deambulabamus in porticu Iouis Liberatoris: Erx. , tr. Cornarius
15. Audio te Dioni et nunc esse et fuisse semper: Ep. 10, tr. Philelphus
51. De hesterni pacti formula et praescripto: Sph., tr. Serranus
16. Audio te Dionis imprimis necessarium et familiarem: Ep. 10, tr.
52. Deone an hominum alicui lationis legum causam: Lg., tr. Trapezuntius
Ramus
53. Descenderam heri in Peiraeum cum Glaucone: Rep., tr. Serranus
17. Audio te imprimis familiarem Dionis: Ep. 10, tr. Brunus
54. Descenderam heri in Peiraeum una cum Glaucone: Rep. , tr. Ficinus
18. Audio te inter praecipuos Dionis amicos: Ep. 10, tr. Cornarius
(FGLT)
19. Audiui ex Archedemo putare te non solum me: Ep. 2, tr. Cornarius
810 P A R T III CATALOGS 811

55. Deumne Alcibiades precaturus adis: Ale. 2, tr. Serranus 94. Iamne o Terpsion aut dudum ex agro: Tht., tr. Cornarius
56. Deurnne an aliquem honiinum [hominem T\ o hospites condendarum 95. Iam ut communiter statueramus hue tandem omnes: Epin., tr. Ficinus
legum: Lg., tr. Ficinus (FGLT) (FGLT)
57. Deumne o Alcibiades precaturus accedis: Ale. 2, tr. Ficinus (FGLT) 96. Iam ut cupiebamus recte tandem omnes tres: Epin., tr. Trapezuntius
58. Deusne an hominurn aliquis hospites: Lg., tr. Serranus 97. Ibam ex Academia in Lyceum recta per pomerium: Ly., tr. Serranus
59. Deusne aut homo aliquis uobis o hospites: Lg., tr. Cornarius 98. Ibam ex Academia in Lyceum recta per suburbium iuxta moenia: Ly.,
60. Dico igitur inquit Alcibiades Socrates: Smp. (Oratio Alcibiadis onlv), tr. Ficinus (GLT)
tr. Brunus 99. Ibam ex Academia recta ad Lyceum itinere: Ly., tr. Cornarius
61. Dionysii grammatici ludum ingressus iuuenes quosdam: Amat., tr. 100. Ibam quidem ab Academia recta ad Lyceum: Ly., tr. Victorius
Ficinus (FGLT) 101. Indigebam o Socrates quaedam priuatim tecum: Thg., tr. Ficinus (F)
62. Docerine potest uirtus an doceri nequit: Virt.. tr. Cornarius, rev. 102. In Dionysii grammatici ingressus fui et uidi: Amat. (vs. 1), tr. Langius
Serranus 103. In Dionysii grammatici ludum ingressus sum: Amat., tr. Cornarius
65. Kcquid legem esse censemus: Min., tr. Serranus 104. In Dionysii grammatici scholam me contuli: Amat.. tr. Burlaeus
64. Ecquid uero est lucri cupiditas: Hippareh. , tr. Serranus 105. Ingentem profecto tibi o Theodore gratiam debeo: Pol., tr. Ficinus
65. Ecquis ille erat mi Socrates cum quo heri: Euthd. , tr. Serranus (GLT)
66. E loro aut unde nobis Menexenus: Mx., tr. Cornarius 106. Ingentem tibi o Theodore gratiam debeo: Pol., tr. Ficinus (F)
67. E l'orone aut unde Menexenum: M x., tr. Serranus 107. Ingressus Dionysii grammatici scholam: Amat. (vs. 2), tr. Langius
68. E loro uenis Menexene an unde: M x., tr. Ficinus (FG) 108. Ingressus eram ludum Dionysii grammatici: Amat., tr. Serranus
69. E loro uenis [venit sic 7] Menexene aut unde: Mx., tr. Ficinus (LT) 109. In omnibus quidem rerum uestrarum casibus: Ep. 4, tr. Serranus
70. Ego dum apud uos diu multumque uersarer: Ep. 1. tr. Ficinus (LT) 110. Ionem saluere iubeo unde ad nos accessisti: Ion, tr. Ficinus (F)
71. Ego dum apud uos diuturna opera ita imperium uestrum: Ep. 1, tr. 111. Ionem saluere iubeo unde ad nos modo aduenisti: Ion, tr. Serranus
Ficinus (FG) 112. Ionem saluere iubeo unde nunc ad nos aduenisti: Ion, tr. Ficinus
72. Ego tarn longa uobis opera assiduitateque: Ep. 1, tr. Brunus (GLT)
75. Equidem mihi uideor his in rebus quas a me: Smp., tr. Serranus 113. Ionem saluere iubeo unde nunc nobis: Ion, tr. Cornarius
74. Equidem ita apud uos: Ep. 1, tr. Serranus 114. Ipse affuisti o Phaedo ea die quam Socrates: Phd., tr. Brunus
75. Equidem uideor mihi non adeo inexercitatus: Smp., tr. Cornarius 115. Ipsene o Phaedo affuisti qua [quo 7] die Socrates: Phd., tr. Ficinus
76. Estne uirtus o Hippotrophe res quae doctrina: Virt., tr. Cincius (FGLT)
77. Et tuos illos commentarios: Ep. 12, tr. Serranus 116. Ipsene o Phaedo in ilia die affuisti Socrati: Phd., tr. Cornarius
78. Euphraeo consului quemadmodum scripsisti: Ep. 5, tr. Cornarius 117. Iubeo Ionem saluere unde ad nos: Ion, tr. Lippius
79. Euphraeo suasi quemadmodum ad me scripsisti tuarum ut rerum 118. Iuxta hesternam consensionem o Socrates et ipsi: Sph., tr. Cornarius
curam suscipiat: Ep. 5, tr. Brunus 119. Lex nobis quid est?—De qua lege interrogas: Min., tr. Cornarius
80. Euphraeo suasi quemadmodum ad me scripsisti ut in rerum tuarum 120. Litteris uestris mihi signiFicastis: Ep. 7, tr. Ramus
administratione: Ep. 5, tr. Ficinus (FGLT) 121. Magnam profecto gratiam debeo tibi Theodore: Pol., tr. Serranus
81. Euphraeo suasi sicut mandares ut rerum tuarum: Ep. 5, tr. Ramus 122. Mihi quidem uidetur deorum aliquis fortunam uobis optimam modo
82. Euphraeo sui auctor quemadmodum ad me scripsisti: Ep. 5, tr. recte earn recipiatis: Ep. 6, tr. Ficinus (FGLT)
Serranus 123. Mihi quidem uidetur deorum aliquis fortunam uobis optimam benigne
83. Exeunti ad Cvnosarges mihi cum ad Illissum: Ax., tr. Agricola abundeque parasse: Ep. 6, tr. Brunus
84. Exeunti mihi ad Cvnosarges cum propter Eilvssum: Ax., tr. Sambucus 124. Mihi quidem uidetur deorum aliquis optimam fortunam dummodo
85. Exeunti mihi ad Cvnosarges et Lissum earn aduentanti: Ax., tr. earn bene amplectamini: Ep. 6, tr. Serranus
Cassarinus 125. Mihi uidetur deorum aliquis prosperam uobis secundamque: Ep. 6, tr.
86. Existimat (sicut ex Archedemo cognoui) a te: Ep. 2, tr. Ramus Ramus
87. Fili Clini puto te admirari: Ale. 2, tr. Camotius 126. Mihi uidetur deus aliquis uobis bonam fortunam: Ep. 6, tr. Cornarius
88. Habesne unde mihi explices quidnam iustum: Just., tr. Scutellius 127. Mihi uidetur deorum aliquis optimam uobis fortunam si earn recte ac-
89. Heri ad Peiraeum cum Glaucone Aristonis descendi: Rep., tr. ceperitis: Ep. 6, tr. Anon. Vaticanus
Chrvsoloras-Decembrius 128. Mirificam uoluptatem cepi ex his commentariis: Ep. 12, tr. Ramus
90. Heri cum ad uesperam Potidaea ab exercitu: Chrm., tr. Ficinus (F) 129. Mirum est quam libenti anima commentaria abs te: Ep. 12, tr. Ficinus
91. Heri descendi in Peiraeum cum Glaucone Aristonis: Rep., tr. Cor­ (F)
narius 130. Mirum est quanta cum uoluptate commentaria abs te: Ep. 12, tr.
92. Hesterna die in Peiraeum descendi cum Glaucone: Rep., tr. Cassarinus Ficinus (GLT)
95. Hunc uirum in armis pugnantem spectastis: La., tr. Serranus 131. Modone o Terpsio an iam pridem rure uenisti: Tht., tr. Ficinus (GLT)
812 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 813

132. Modone Terpsio an dudum rure: Tht., tr. Serranus 167. Potesne nobis quid sit iustum explicare: Just., tr. Pirckheimer
133. Multam profecto gratiam tibi debeo o Theodore: Pol., tr. Cornarius 168. Pridem sub uesperam cum Potidaea ab exercitu: Chrm., tr. Serranus
134. Nobis quidam nuper retulit Clitophonem: Clit., tr. Pirckheimer 169. Pridie cum uesperi Potidaea ab exercitu: Chrm., tr. Ficinus (GLT)
135. Nos te heri Sisyphe multo expectabamus tempore: Sis., tr. Pirckheimer 170. Pridie uesperi redii ex Potidaea de exercitu: Chrm., tr. Cornarius
136. Nos uero etiam heri te multo tempore: Sis., tr. Cornarius 171. Principium epistulae tibi sit simulque signum: Ep. 13, tr. Cornarius
137. Nos uero Sisyphe heri te et longo spatio: Sis., tr. Corradus 172. Principium tibi epistulae simulque nota: Ep. 13, tr. Anon. Lugdunensis
138. Num doceri potest uirtus aut doceri nequit: Virt., tr. Cornarius 173. Proficiscebar quidem ex Academia recta uersus Lyceum: Ly., tr. Anon.
139. Numquid doceri potest uirtus an non potest: Virt., tr. Camerarius Braidens.
140. Num uirtus aliqua doctrina comparatur aut non doctrina: Virt., tr. 174. Puto manifestam esse per omne tempus: Ep. 4, tr. Ficinus (FGLT)
Gesnerus 175. Puto manifestum per omne tempus fore: Ep. 4, tr. Brunus
141. Nuper mihi retulit quidam Clitophontem: Clit., tr. Ficinus (FGLT) 176. Quaenam uox percussit nos o Socrates: Hale., tr. Pirckheimer
142. Nuper o Terpsion an pridem rure uenisti: Tht., tr. Ficinus (F) 177. Quaeris an si gaudium in epistulis adscribas: Ep. 3, tr. Cornarius
143. Nuper quidem nobis exponebat Clitophontem: Clit., tr. Cornarius 178. Quaeris in tuis litteris rectiusne in salutationibus: Ep. 3 . tr. Serranus
144. Num ad deum orationem habiturus abis o Alcibiades: Ale. 2, tr. Cor­ 179. Quae uenerunt commentaria mirabile quam libenter: Ep. 12, tr. Brunus
narius 180. Quae uero praecipue se qui uos deceat: Ep. 8, tr. Ramus
145. O amice Phaedre quonam et unde?—A Lvsia o Socrates Cephali filio. 181. Quae uox insonuit nobis o Socrates: Hale., tr. Datus
Pergo autem deambulandi gratia extra urbem: Phdr., tr. Ficinus 182. Qua maxime sententia prospere succedant: Ep. 8, tr. Brunus
(FGLT) 183. Quam grata longum post iter defesso quies: Cnti., tr. Ficinus (GLT)
146. O amice Phaedre quonam et unde?—A Lvsia o Socrates Cephali filio. 184. Quam grata longum post iter defesso requies: Cnti., tr. Ficinus (F)
Pergo autem deambulationis gratia muros extra: Phdr., tr. Brunus 185. Quam diu multumque uobiscum uersatus sum: Ep. 1, tr. Ramus
147. O fili Cliniae admirari te arbitror: Ale. 1, tr. Ficinus (FGLT) 186. Qua potissimum uiuendi ratione prospere: Ep. 8, tr. Ficinus (FGLT)
148. O praeciare et sapiens Hippia quamdiu est te: Hp. ma., tr. Serranus 187. Qua uos ratione o uiri Athenienses alfecerint: A p., tr. Ficinus (FGLT)
149. O pulcher et sapiens Hippia quam raro ad Athenas: Hp. ma., tr. Cor­ 188. Quemadmodum qui ex longa uia labens: Cnti., tr. Cornarius
narius 189. Quibus consiliis usi maxime felieem rerum: Ep. 8, tr. Cornarius
150. Opus habebam o Socrates quaedam priuatim tecum: Thg., tr. Ficinus 190. Quibus maxime institutis quaue: Ep. 8, tr. Serranus
(GLT) 191. Quid adhuc uenisti o Crito?—Nondum lucessit: Cri., tr. Rinucius
151. O sapiens et pulcher Hippias [Hippia T] quam longo interuallo 192. Quid est lucri studium quid tandem est: Hipparch., tr. Cornarius
Athenas: Hp. ma., tr. Ficinus (LT) 193. Quid hoc noui o Socrates quod relicto Lyceo: Euthphr., tr. Rinucius
152. O sapiens et pulcher Hippias quam raro Athenas accedis: Hp. ma., tr. 194. Quid hue aduenisti o Crito an non adhuc summum: Cn. (vs. 1), tr.
Ficinus (FG) Brunus
153. Peractis nimirum conuentis nos tres omnes recte: Epin., tr. Serranus 195. Quidnam hoc noui est Socrates te relictis Lycei: Euthphr., tr. Serranus
154. Pergenti mihi ad Cynosarges gymnasium et Ilisso: Ax., tr. Dugo 196. Quidnam legem esse putamus?—De qua lege interrogas: Min., tr.
155. Petis an rectius ponatur in salutationibus gaudere an quemadmodum Ficinus (T)
ego solitus sum in epistolis ad amicos scribere: Ep. 3, tr. Brunus 197. Quidnam lex apud nos est?—De qua lege interrogas: Min., tr. Ficinus
156. Petis an rectius ponatur in salutationibus gaudere an quemadmodum (FGL)
ego solitus sum scribere ad amicos bene agere: Ep. 3, tr. Ficinus (FG) 198. Quidnam lucri cupiditas est et qui sunt lucri cupidi: Hipparch., tr.
157. Petis an rectius ponatur in salutationibus Plato Dionysio gaudere an Ficinus (FGLT)
quemadmodum: Ep. 3, tr. Ficinus (LT) 199. Quid noui o Socrates accidit quod praetermittens exercitationes:
158. Postquam Athenas domo e Clazomenis peruenissemus: Prm., tr. Euthphr., tr. Ficinus (FG)
Serranus 200. Quid noui o Socrates accidit quod relictis exercitationibus: Euthphr., tr.
159. Potesne dicere nobis quid sit iustum: Just., tr. Gesnerus Ficinus (LT)
160. Potesne mihi demonstrare Socrates an uirtus doceri: Men., tr. Serranus 201. Quid o Socrates noui accidit ut disputandi: Euthphr., tr. Philelphus
161. Potesne mihi dicere quid iustum seu ius sit: Just., tr. Camerarius 202. Quid recens Socrates factum est quod in Lyceo: Euthphr., tr. Vietor
162. Potesne mihi dicere o Socrates num doceri possit: Men., tr. Cornarius 203. Quid tu hoc temporis uenisti: Cri. (vs. 2), tr. Brunus
163. Potesne mihi ostendere Socrates doceri uirtus possit necne: Men., tr. 204. Quid uobis acciderit iudices ab accusatoribus: Ap. (vs. 2), tr. Brunus
Ficinus (GLT) 205. Quid uobis Athenienses uiri contingent: Ap. (vs. 1), tr. Brunus
164. Potesne mihi ostendere Socrates utrum uirtus doctrina an exercitatione: 206. Quis erat ille o Socrates cum quo heri: Euthd., tr. Cornarius
Men., tr. Ficinus (F) 207. Quis est qui nuper narrauit nobis: Clit., tr. Camerarius
165. Potesne nobis dicere quid sit iustum: Just., tr. Cornarius 208. Quisnam ille erat o Socrates qui cum heri in Lyceo: Euthd., tr. Ficinus
166. Potes nobis dicere quid sit iustum: Just., tr. Corradus (FGLT)
 814 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 815

209. Quod noui o Socrates accidit quod tu: Euthpkr., tr. Cornarius 244. Venerunt ad nos Archippus et Philonides epistulam: Ep. 9, tr. Brunus
210. Quomodo Athenienses uos affecerint accusatores mei: A p., tr. 245. Venerunt ad nos Archippus et Philonides et epistulam quam tu ipsis:
Rudingerus Ep. 9, tr. Cornarius
211. Quonam modo Athenienses animi uestri accusatorum: A p., tr. 246. Venerunt ad nos Archippus et Philonides ferentes epistulam: Ep. 9, tr.
Serranus Ficinus (T)
212. Quorsum Alcibiades num deum aliquid precaturus: Ale. 2, tr. 247. Veniebam ex Academia Euthilicii [siej quae extra urbem: Ly., tr. P.
Sambucus C. Decembrius
213. Scripsimus etiam ad te antea plurimi: Ep. 11, tr. Ramus 248. Veni equidem nudius tertius ex Potidaea: Chrm., tr. Politianus
214. Scripsimus etiam prius ad te referre: Ep. 11, tr. Ficinus (FGLT) 249. Venirnus 6 Socrates et ipsi pulchre quemadmodum heri: Sph., tr.
215. Scripsimus quoque ad te hactenus: Ep. 11, tr. Serranus Ficinus (GLT)
216. Scripsimus tibi etiam prius referre plurimum: Ep. 11, tr. Brunus 250. Venirnus o Socrates oportune quemadmodum heri: Sph., tr. Ficinus (F)
217. Scripsi quidem ad te etiam antea: Ep. 11, tr. Cornarius 251. Vide mihi Protarche quern sermonem nunc a Philebo: Phil., tr. Cor­
218. Scripsisti mihi uos putare in eadem sentential Ep. 7, tr. Cornarius narius
219. Scripsistis mihi censere uos eandem mentem ... Cum ego: Ep. 7, tr. 252. Vide o Protarche quern nunc a Philebo sermonem: Phil., tr. Ficinus
Brunus (FGLT)
220. Scripsistis mihi censere uos eandem mentem ... Quando ego: Ep. 7, tr. 253. Videor mihi in his quae petitis satis: Smp., tr. Ficinus (FGLT)
Ficinus (FGLT) 254. Videris sane Protarche ecquam disputationem: Phil., tr. Serranus
221. Sempiternum est quod per omne tempus et prius existens: Dej., tr. 255. Vidistis uirum pugnantem in armis o Nicia: La., tr. Cornarius
Cornarius 256. Viri Athenienses quomodo uos a meis accusatoribus: Ap., tr. Cornarius
222. Sempiternum quod per omne tempus et prius extitit: Dej., tr. Ficinus 257. Virtus tradine doctrina potest an ea potius est: Virt., tr. Corradus
223. Sic ad bellum et pugnam tenant o Socrates accedendum: Grg., tr. 258. Virum spectastis armis dimicantem o Nicia: La., tr. Ficinus (FGLT)
Ficinus (F) 259. Vis igitur sermonem nostrum et cum hoc Socrate conferamus: Crat.,
224. Sic ad bellum et pugnam cum itur o Socrates ferunt: Grg., tr. Ficinus tr. Ficinus (GL)
(GLT) 260. Vis igitur sermonem nostrum et cum hoc Socrate communicemus:
225. Sic ad bellum et pugnam o Socrates re peracta: Grg., tr. Cornarius Crat., tr. Ficino (T)
226. Sic aiunt Socrates ad bellum et pugnam cunctanter: Grg., tr. Serranus 261. Visne igitur huic etiam Socrati hunc sermonem: Crat., tr. Serranus
227. Significastis mihi per litteras uos in ea esse: Ep. 7, tr. Serranus 262. Visne igitur ut et Socrati huic sermonem: Crat., tr. Cornarius
228. Si in epistulis hoc genere salutationis utor: Ep. 3, tr. Ramus 263. Visne sermonem nostrum cum hoc Socrate: Crat., tr. Ficinus (F)
229. Spero tibi omnibus tuis in rebus atque temporibus: Ep. 4. tr. Ramus 264. Unde et quonam mi Phaedre?—A Lysia Cephali filio: Phdr., tr.
230. Sunt mihi Socrates quaedam priuatim tibi communicanda: Thg., tr. Serranus
Serranus 265. Undenam o Socrates? An uidelicet a uenatione ilia uenis ad quam
231. Sunt quaedam o Socrates quae priuatim tecum: Thg., tr. Cornarius honesta Alcibiadis indoles: Prt., tr. Ficinus (F)
232. Tu me quidem iubes o Demodoce consilii aliquid: Demod., tr. 266. Undenam o Socrates prodis? An uidelicet a uenatione ilia redis ad
Corradus quam Alcibiadis pulchritudo: Prt., tr. Ficinus (LT)
233. Tu me uobis Demodoce consulere iubes: Demod., tr. Pirckheimer 267. Undenam o Socrates prodis? An uidelicet a uenatione ilia redis ad
234. Tune ipse Phaedo aderas Socrati illo ipso die: Phd., tr. Serranus quam honesta Alcibiadis indoles: Prt., tr. Ficinus (G)
235. Tu quid iubes me o Demodoce: Demod.. tr. Cornarius 268. Unde nobis Socrates apparet? Num ex uenatione: Prt., tr. Cornarius
236. Tu uero o Socrates quid faces cum Hippias: Hp. mi., tr. Cornarius 269. Unde prodis Socrates? ex illane uidelicet uenatione: Prt., tr. Serranus
237. Tu uero quidnam taces Socrates cum tarn multa Hippias hie ad doc- 270. Unus duo tres quartus autem o amice Timaee ubinam est ut qui heri a
trinae suae specimen ostenderit: Hp. mi., tr. Ficinus (T) me: T i., tr. Ficinus (F)
238. Tu uero quidnam taces Socrates cum tarn multa Hippias hie 271. Unus duo tres quartus autem o amice Timaee eorum qui a me heri
ostenderit: Hp. mi., tr. Ficinus (FGL) conuiuio: Ti., tr. Ficinus (GLT)
239. Tu uero quid siles Socrates cum Hippias tot tantaque: Hp. mi., tr. 272. Unus duo tres quartus autem o care Timaee ubi nobis est: 7V., tr.
Serranus Cornarius
240. Venere ad nos Archippus et Philonides attuleruntque: Ep. 9, tr. Anon. 273. Unus duo tres quartus uero ille mi Timaee qui heri: T i., tr. Serranus
Hungaricus 274. Ut epistulam a nobis percipias principium tibi est: Ep. 13, tr. Ramus
241. Venerunt ad me Archippus et Philonides: Ep. 9, tr. Serranus 275. Ut iucunda est Socrates longum post iter: Criti., tr. Serranus
242. Venerunt ad nos Archippi et Philonidis lerentes: Ep. 9, tr. Ficinus (L)
243. Venerunt ad nos Archippi Philonidisque iamiliares lerentes epistulam:
Ep. 9, tr. Ficinus (FG)
 CATALOGS 817

(12), Ep. 10(16), Ep. 11 (213), Ep. 12

DE IUSTO (128), Ep. 13 (274)
Camerarius (161) Serranus, Ep. 1 (74). Ep. 2 (1), Flp. 3
G Cornarius (165) (178), Ep. 4 (109), Ep. 5 (82), Ep. 6
Corradus (166) (124), Ep. 7 (227), Ep. 8 (190), Ep. 9
IN D I C E S (241), Ep. 10 (13). Ep. 11 (215), Ep.
Gesnerus (159)
Pirckheimer (167) 12 (77)
Scutellius (88)
1. Index of Dialogues ERYXIAS
DEMODOCUS Cassarinus (43)
T he num ber in parentheses placed after the translator refers to the incipit Cornarius (235) Cornarius (50)
n u m b e r in Cat. F; as in that table, the letters F G L T refer to the original Corradus (232) Corradus (36)
Pirckheimer (233) Pirckheimer (37)
version and the three sixteenth-century redactions of Ficino’s trans­
lations. DE YTRTUTE EUTHYDEMUS
Camerarius (139) Cornarius (206)
ALCIBIADES 1 Cincius (76) Ficinus. FGLT (2(18)
Sambucus (84) Cornarius (138) Serranus (65)
Cornarius (3) Serranus (39) Cornarius, rev. Serranus (62)
Ficinus, FGLT (147) VVollius (38) EUTHYPHRO
Corradus (257)
Serranus (4) Gesnerus (140) Cornarius (209)
CHARMIDES Ficinus, F'G (199), LT (200)
ALCIBIADES 2 Pirckheimer (9)
Cornarius (170) Phileiphus (201)
Camodus (87) Ficinus, F (90), GLT (169) EPINOMIS Rinucius (193)
Cornarius (144) Politianus, partial vs. (248) Cornarius (2) Serranus (195)
Ficinus, FGLT (57) Serranus (168) Ficinus, FGLT (95) Vietor (202)
Sambucus (212) Serranus (153)
Serranus (55) CLITOPHOM GORGIAS
Trapezuntius (96)
Camerarius (207) Anonvmus Ylarcianus, extract (Cat. C,
AMATORES EPISTULAE
Cornarius (143) no. 6)
Burlaeus (104) Ficinus, FGLT (141) Anonvmus Hungaricus, Ep. 9 (240) Brunus (22)
Cornarius (103) Pirckheimer (134) Anonvmus Lugdunensis, Ep. 13 (172) Cornarius (225)
Ficinus, FGLT (61) Anonvmus Vaticanus, Ep. 6 (127) Ficinus, F (223), GLT (224)
Langius, vs. 1 (102), vs. 2 (107) CRATYLUS Gaza, partial vs. (Cat. C. no. 3)
Brunus Ep. 1(72), Ep. 2(20), Ep. 3(155),
Serranus (108) Cornarius (262) Ep. 4 (175), Ep. 5 (79), Ep. 6 (123), Meander, extract (Cat. C, no. 13)
Ficinus, F (263), GL (259), T (260) Ep. 7 (219), Ep. 8 (182), Ep. 9 (244), Serranus (226)
APOLOGIA SOCRATIS
Serranus (261) Ep. 10(17), Ep. 11 (216), Ep. 12(179)
Brunus, vs. 1 (205), vs. 2 (204) Cornarius Ep. 1 (33), Ep. 2 (19), Ep. 3 HALCYOM
Cornarius (256) CRITIAS Datus (181)
(177), Ep. 4 (10), Ep. 5 (78), Ep. 6
Ficinus. FGLT (187) Cornarius (188) (126), Ep. 7 (218), Ep. 8 (189). Ep. 9 Obsopoeus (25)
Rudingerus (210) Ficinus, F (184), GLT (183) (245), Ep. 10 (18), Ep. 11 (217), Ep. Pirckheimer (176)
Serranus (211) Serranus (275) 12 (24), Ep. 13 (171)
Ficinus Ep. 1, FG (71), LT (70); Ep. 2, HIPPARCHUS
AXIOCHUS CRITO
FGLT (21); Ep. 3, FG (156), LT Cornarius (192)
Agricola (83) Bruni, vs. 1 (194), vs. 2 (203) (157); Ep. 4, FGLT (174); Ep. 5, Ficinus, FGLT (198)
Cassarinus (85) Cornarius (49) FGLT (80); Ep. 6, FGLT (122); Ep. Serranus (64)
Cincius (35) Ficinus, F (46), GL (47), T (48) 7, FGLT (220); Ep. 8, FGLT (186);
Cornarius (26) Rinucius (191) Ep. 9, FG (243), L (242), T (246); HIPPIAS YIAIOR
Dugo (154) Serranus (45) Ep. 10, FGLT (14); Ep. 11, FGLT Cornarius (149)
Ficinus (41) (214); Ep. 12, F (129), GLT (130) Ficinus, FG (152), LT (151)
Meander, extract (Cat. C, no. 13) DEFINITIONES Serranus (148)
Herwart, extracts (Cat. C, no. 18)
Perionius (40) Cornarius (22 1) Phileiphus Ep. 1 (32), Ep. 9(11), Ep. 10
Pirckheimer (27) Corradus (6) HIPPIAS MIMOR
(15)
Raianus (44) F’icinus (222) Ramus, Ep. 1 (185), Ep. 2 (86), Ep. 3 Cornarius (236)
Rinucius (42) Pirckheimer (7) (228), Ep. 4 (229), Ep. 5 (81), Ep. 6 Ficinus. FGL (238), T (237)
(125), Ep. 7 (120), Ep. 8 (180), Ep. 9 Serranus (239)
 F A R T III C A TA LO G S 819

Ficinus, FGLT (115) Occo, extract (Cat. C, no. 11)

IO Serranus (234) TIMAEUS
Serranus (132)
Cornarius (113) Cornarius (272)
Ficinus, F (110), GLT (112) PHAEDRUS THE AGES Ficinus, F (270), GLT (271)
Lippius (117) Bessarion, extracts (Cat. C, no. 4) Cornarius (231) LeonicusTomaeus, extract(Cat. C , no. 7)
Serranus (111) Bruni, partial vs. (146) Ficinus, F (101), GLT (150) Perionius, extracts (Cat. C, no. 8)
Cornarius (23) Serranus (230) Serranus (273)
LACHES Ficinus, FGLT (145)
Cornarius (255) Sa.xettus, extracts (Cat. C. no. 15) 2. Index of Translators1
Ficinus, FGLT (258) Serranus (264)
Serranus (93)
PHILEBUS Anonvmus Braidensis
LEGES 224, 225, 227, 241, 244, 245, 256,
Cornarius (25 1) Ly. —MS: 171. 273, 281, 304, 320, 328, 329, 339,
Anonvmus Florentinus, extract (Cat. C, Ficinus, FGLT (252) 349, 352, 360, 364, 379, 389. 391.
no. 5) Serranus (254) Anonvmus Florentinus
EDN: 2.
Cornarius (59) Lg . , extracts—MS: Cat. C, no. 5. Cn. (vs. 1)—MSS: 4, 7, 8, 15. 92, 122,
Ficinus. FGLT (56) POLITIC US
Anonvmus Hungaricus 128, 168. 174, 182, 192, 197. 216,
Serranus (58) Cornarius (133) 276, 293, 299, 310, 361, 367, 370.
Trapezuntius (52) Ficinus, F (106), GLT (105) Ep. 9— EDN: Cat. C, no. 12.
Cn. (vs. 2)—MSS: 24, 27, 39, 53, 74.
Serranus (121) Anonymus Lugdunensis 75, 90, 104, 125, 130, 132, 147. 148,
LYSIS
PROTAGORAS Ep. 13— EDNS: 96, 111, 1 15, 124. 132,
156, 164, 178, 180, 185, 214. 224,
Anonvmus Braidensis (173) 225, 227, 241, 245, 256. 263, 264,
Cornarius (99) Amerbach,attrib. .extract(Cat. C, no. 10) 136, 137, 141, 147, 175, 197.
273, 277. 320, 328, 329, 339, 349,
Dccernbrius, Petrus Candidus (247) Cornarius (268) Anonymus Marcianus 352, 360, 379, 389.
Ficinus, F (34), GLT (98) Ficinus, F (265), G (267), LT (266) \E p. — MSS: 3, 5, 14, 16, 20. 23. 24,
Serranus (97) Serranus (269) Grg. , extract—MS: Cat. C, no. 6.
25, 26, 31, 32*, 40, 50, 53, 57, 58, 67.
Victorius (100) Anonymus Vaticanus (Cat. C, no. 1) 73, 74, 75, 81, 82, 84, 85bis. 88, 89.
RESPUBLICA
MENEXENUS Ep. 6— MSS: 209, 350. 91, 94, 96, 98, 101, 103, 111. 112,
Camerarius, extract (Cat. C. no. 16) 113, 115, 124, 128, 130, 138, 142,
Casae (8) Cassarinus (92) Anonymus Vindobonensis (“ D. Seue- 147, 160, 162, 164, 170, 175, 178.
Cornarius (66) Chrvsoloras-Ubertus Decembrius (89) nus” ?) 179, 187, 193, 194, 198, 206, 228,
Ficinus. FG (68), LT (69) Cornarius (91) 229, 230, 231, 232, 237, 238, 245,
Ap. —MS: 382.
Serranus (67) Decembrius. Petrus Candidus (28) 250, 256, 261, 268, 273, 278*, 296,
Ficinus, FGLT (54) Rudolphus Agricola 301, 302, 304, 306, 307, 312, 313,
MEMO Serranus (53) A*.—MSS: 54, 140, 274, 275, 290. 322, 319, 324, 328, 329, 330, 334, 339,
Cornarius (162) 357. EDNS: 3, 4, 9, 15, 17, 22, 25. 341, 344, 346. 347, 351, 352, 354,
Ficinus, F (164), GLT (163) SISYPHUS
31, 32, 34. 37, 46, 52, 53, 67, 71. 79, 358, 360, 362, 368, 372. 377, 381,
Nansius, partial vs. (Cat. C, no. 17) Cornarius (136) 82, 95, 96, 104, 111, 115, 117, 126. 392. EDN: 1.
Serranus (160) Corradus (137) 132, 136, 137, 141, 147, 175, 191. Grg. —MSS: 4. 48, 51, 53, 59, 64, 70,
Pirckheimer (135) 78, 80, 84, 85, 132, 134, 159, 169,
MINOS Bonifacius Amerbach
SOPHISTA 182, 185, 225. 235, 243, 244, 245,
Cornarius (119) Prt. , extract—MS: Cat. C, no. 10. 248, 256, 259, 273, 276, 279, 281,
Ficinus, FGL (197), T (196) Cornarius (118) 291, 293. 299, 304, 305, 310, 311.
Serranus (63) Ficinus. F (250), GLT (249) Bessarion 320, 335, 338, 339, 352, 360, 369.
Roverius, attrib.. extract (Cat. C, no. Serranus (51) Phdr. , extracts— EDN: Cat. C, no. 4. 379. EDN: 2.
9) Tiara (5) \Phd. — MSS: 4, 6*, 7, 10*. 27, 28, 29.
Leonardus Brunus Aretinus
30. 34, 38, 41, 45, 53, 60, 64, 70, 72,
PARMENIDES SYMPOSIUM Ap. (vs. 1)—MSS: 7, 15, 106, 122, 174, 75, 78, 80, 85, 90, 93. 1 10*, 119, 122,
Cornarius (31) Bruni, partial vs. (60) 192, 299, 310, 361, 367. 125, 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135,
Ficinus, FGLT (29) Cornarius (75) u p - (vs. 2)—MSS: 24, 27, 37, 39, 53, 146, 155, 156, 159. 161, 166, 177,
Serranus (158) Ficinus, FGLT (253) 74, 75, 90, 104, 125, 130, 132. 148, 182, 186, 189, 192, 195, 196, 198,
Trapezuntius (30) Serranus (73) 156, 164, 178, 180, 185, 206, 214, 213, 219, 220, 222, 223, 225, 235,
PHAEDO THEAETETUS
Brunus (114) Cornarius (94) 1 Numbers marked with an asterisk (*) indicate items which contain only the prelace
Cornarius (1 16) Ficinus, F (142), GLT (131), For dialogues marked with an obelus (f), see also the Addenda.
820 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 821

236 240, 244. 248, 259, 265, 266 Demod.—EDN: 124. C ri. —MSS: 118, 1/6. EDNS: 116, 157. Virt. —EDNS: 60, 74, 81, 85, 91, 98.
270 271, 276. 280, 281, 283. 288* Epin. — EDN: 143. 158, 166, 169, 172, 174, 181. 183, 102, 150, 151. (202).
289 *. 293, 298 299 304, 305. 320 Eryx.—EDN: 124. 193, 196.
329 331, 333, 335, 339, 345, 352 Hipparch.—EDNS: 73, 173. Cnti. —MSS: 1 18. 176, 322.
Joannes Georgius Herwart
355 363, 366, 373, 374, 378, 379 J u st. —EDN: 124. Def. —MSS: 21, 65, 68, 69, 86. 100. Ep.. extracts—A1S: Cat. C. no. 18.
383 388. 390, 393. Lg. —EDN: 143. 116, 121, 157, 208, 221, 246, 247.
t Phdr. — MSS: 9, 12, 36 , 38, 53. 74 . 85, Meno —EDNS: 127, 129, 133, 135, 142 Reinerus Langius
285, 286, 380. EDNS: 10. 28, 29, 44,
104 119, 130. 132, 133, 151, 178, 149. 47, 77, 80, 108, 121, 156, A m at. —EDN: 134.
185 220, 225, 245. 256. 259, 267, R ep. —EDN: 143. E pin.— MSS: 118, 176. EDN: 153.
272 273, 306, 307, 310. 314, 320, Sis. —EDN: 124. Laurentius Lippius Collensis
Ep — MSS: 35, 118, 176, 217, 218.
328 329. 339, 342, 352, 360, 371, S trip — EDN: 70. EDNS: 6. 33, 62, 131, 148, 197. lo— MS: 95.
386 77.—MS: 120. Euthd. —MSS: 145. 208. 323. Franciscus Nansius
Smp. —-MSS: 108, 339. Virt.—EDN: 124. Euthphr.—MSS: 54. 145. 208, 316.
Meno (part)—MS: Cat. C. no. 17.
acobus Burlaeus Sebastianus Corradus EDNS: 106. 166. 169, 172, 174. 181,
192. .Michael Neander
Amat. --E D N : 110. Spuria— EDNS: 59. 79, 96, 111, 115, Grg. —MS: 145.
132, 136, 137, 141, 145, 147, 175. ,4.v.. extract— EDN: Cat. C, no. 13.
>achim Camerariu 5 Hipparch.—MSS: 145, 208, 316. EDN: Grg., extract— EDN: Cat. C. no. 13.
191. 14, 33, 106.
Clit. — EDN: 114. t Hp. m a. —MSS: 145, 316. Vincentius Obsopoeus
Just. —EDN: 114. Augustinus Datus
t Hp. m i. —MSS: 145, 323. Halcyon— EDNS: 41. 51. 58.
Rep . , extract— EDNS: Cat. C, no. 16. Halcyon —EDNS: 16, 20, 27, 32, 37, 46, Io —MSS: 54, 145. 316.
Virt.—EDN: 114. 68, 75, 146, 154, 155. La. —MSS: 145, 323. Adolphus Occo II (Cat. C, no. 11)
Joannes Baptista Camotius Petrus Candidus Decembrius Lg. —MSS: 118, 127, 176, 190. EDNS: Tht. (part)— EDNS: 122, 130, Cat. C.
157, 158 no. 11. note.
Ale. 2 — MSS: 295. 297. Ly . —MSS: 62, 153. L y . —MSS: 145, 316.
Rep. —MSS: 33, 46*. 55, 126, 136*, Mx. —MSS: 118, 176, 321. EDNS: 159. Joachim Perionius
Joannes Casae 141, 149. 163, 167, 172, 173, 181*, 167, 178, 180, (206). A x . —EDNS: 56. 57, 64, 72. 92.
Mx. — EDNS: 160. 162. 164. 168. 182. 184. 205*, 258. 282, 356. \M en. —MSS: 145, 208, 316. Ti. (part)—EDNS: Cat. C, no. 8.
Antonius Cassarinus Joannes Dugo Philonius Min. —MSS: 145, 208. 316. EDN: 99.
Franciscus Philelphus
Prm.—MSS: 145,208,316,359.EDN: 163.
A x .— MS: 340. Ax. — EDN: 87. Phd.— MSS: 54, 118, 176. EDNS: Ep. —MSS: 164, 384.
Eryx. —MS: 340. 39bis, 48, 90, 93, 152. 157, 158, 165, Euthphr.—MS: 255.
Rep. —MSS: 2. 43, 63, 102, 233, 325, Marsilius Ficinus
166. 169, 172. 174, 181, 193, 196. Willibaldus Pirckheimer
326. 337. Opera Omnia—MSS: 76-77. EDNS: 5, 8, Phdr. —MSS: 118, 145. EDN: 199.
30. 32, 37, 43, 46, 52, 67, 71, 79, 82, Phlb. —MSS: 145, 208, 316. Spuria—MSS: 199*, 200. 201, 202.
Manuel Chrvsoloras and Ubertus Decem- 95. 96, 111, 1 15, 1 17, 126, 132, 136, 203*, 204. EDN: 38.
brius Pol. —MSS: 145. 323.
137, 141, 147, 175, 189, 191, 195, Prt. —MSS: 145, 323. EDN: 112.
Rep. —MSS: 11. 19, 79 154, 158. 191, 198, (203), (204). Angelus Politianus
Rep. —MSS: 1 18, 176, 321-322. 376.
269, 303, 309, 387. Ale. 1 — MSS: 145, 208, 316. EDNS: 36, Charm, (fragment)—EDNS: 12. 13. 23,
EDNS: 63, 94, 161.
105, 173. 179. Sph. —MSS: 54, 145, 323.
35, 40, 45, 50, 54, 66, 78, 88.
Cincius Romanus Ale. 2 —MSS: 44, 145. 208, 316. EDNS: Sm p. —MSS: 145, 321. EDN: 194. Flermannus Raianus Welsdalius
Ax . —MSS: 1,13, 18, 27, 28, 38, 39, 42, 36, 157, 158, 171, 173, 179. Tht. —MSS: 127, 145, 208. 316.
47, 49. 52, 53. 61, 109. 150. 156, 164, Amat. —MSS: 145, 152. 208, 316. A x — EDNS: 113, 118, 123.
T77t£. — M S S : 145, 316. E D N : 14, 33,
168, 207, 210, 212, 215, 220, 226, EDNS: 7, 14, 33, 42, 106, 119, 166, 100, 107. Petrus Ramus
227, 249, 253, 254, 257, 259, 260, 169. 172, 174, 181, 182, 190. T i. —MSS: 54, 118, 176, 322. EDNS: E p . —EDN: 76, 86, 120, 125, (201).
300, 315, 353, 365, 383, 390. EDN: Ap. —MSS: 118, 176. EDNS: 103, 157, 39, 49, 55, 61, 69, 83, 89.
97. 158, 166, 169, 172, 174, 181, 193, Argumenta—MSS: 239, 242, 246. Rinucius Aretinus
Virt. —MS: 131. 196. Excerpta vana —MSS: 97, 107, 123, 139, ,4.r.—MSS: 17, 24, 56. 105, 125, 137,
Ax. — MSS: 54, 68, 69, 71. 83, 87, 99, 143, 152.
Janus Cornarius 147, 164. 211, 287, 294, 308, 318,
114, 121, 157, 208, 221, 251, 252,
343, 375, 379.
Opera omnia— EDN: 109. 285, 380. EDNS: 10, 11, 18, 19. 21. Theodorus Gaza
Cn.—MSS: 17, 56, 105, 117, 165, 287,
Ale. 1 — EDN: 73. 24, 26, 28, 29, 44, 47, 77, 80. 108. Grg. (p art)— M S : C at. C, no. 3. 292, 308.
Ale. 2 —EDN: 73. 121, 128, 156. Euthphr. —MS: 211.
A m at. —EDN: 73. Chrm.—MSS: 145, 323. Conradus Gesnerus
l.v — EDN 124. Clit. —MSS: 145, 323. EDN: 124. Just. —EDNS: 60, 65, 74, 81. 85, 91, Julius Roverius (?)
Def. — EDN: 124. Crat — MSS: 145, 323. 98. 102, 150, 151, (202). Min. . extract — .VIS: 9.
822 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 823

Esrornus Rudingerus Petreius Tiara Fichet, Guillaume—237 Paolo di Teramo, Fra—41

Ap. —EDN. 139. Sph. —EDNS: 84. (200). Ficini, Ficino—221 Paulus—56
Ficino, Marsilio—87, 169, 221, 239, 242 Petrus Collensis—222
Joannes Sambucus Nicolaus Leonicus Tomaeus Fiesole master—74 Peutinger, Conrad— 127, 143
77., extract—EDN: Cat. C, no. 7. Filelfo, Francesco (?)—255 Peutmger, Karl— 143
Ale. 2 — EDN: 101.
Fonzio, Bartolomeo— 107, 111 Pfeutzer, Johann—274
Ax. — EDN. 101.
Georgius Trapezuntius Furlanus, Daniel (?)—8 Pirckheimer, Johann— 136
Philippus Saxettus E pin .— MSS: 22, 144, 183, 234, 317, 327,
Pirckheimer, Willibald— 199-204
336. r., AAcDONSIOS—48 Plieningen, Dietrich von—275
Phdr. (part)— MS: Cat. C, no. 15.
Lg —MSS: 22, 144, 183, 234, 262*. 284*, Gaguin, Robert—311 Plieningen, Johann von—274
Nicolaus Scutellius Tridentinus 317, 327, 332*, 336, 348*. George of Trebizond—284, 332 Portier. Fr. Louis—257
Just. —MS: 188. Prrn. — MS: 385. Ginagani, Lucius—330
Giovanni da Capestrano, San—41 Redolfini, Francesco de’—338
Nicolaus Secundinus Petrus Victorius Giovanni di Cenni of Arezzo. Ser—9, 59. Reuchlin, Johannes—221
L'nidentiliedexcerpt—MS: Cat. C. no. 2. Lv. — MS: 66.
78, 355 de Rimbottis, Donatus— 134
Giovardus Verulanus. Victorius—308 de Rimbottis, Jacobus— 134
Joannes Serranus Theodorus Vietor Giudetti, Lorenzo—247 Rustichellus, Guliclmus— 197
Euthphr.— EDN: 144.
Gobellini de Lvns, Joannes—325
Opera omnia — EDN: 123.
Dialogi Select! — EDN: (205)
Gregoropoulos, .Manuel—221 Salvini, Sebastiano—68, 87
,4/c. / — EDN: 186. Hieronymus Wolfius Guarini Veronese, Guarino—309 Sardi, Alessandro—Cat. C, no. 3
,'1/c. 3—EDN: 187. Tv.— EDN: 122. 130, 170, 177. Gundisalvus Hispanus—26, 40. 58 Sassetti, Filippo— 137
A p . — EDN: 138. 185. Savonarola, Girolamo—97
Cn. — EDN: 140. “ H. G .” —315 Scala, Bartolomeo— 71
Io— EDN: 176. 188.
Haubath, Hermann—307 Schiaffini, Niccolo. da Camogli— 146
Phd. —EDN: 184.
Hippolvtus Lunensis, Petrus— 145 Scutellius Tridentinus, Nicolaus— 188
Seraptus Pontremulensis, Peregrinus—
Jacobus de Roma—241 109
3. Index of Scribes, Annotators and Decorators of Manuscripts Joannes Andreae—268 Sevenus, D.—382
Joannes Theatinus—280 Simeonibus, Jeremias de—263
Master of the "Vitae Imperatorum’’— Bruni, Leonardo—44, 59 Jouffrov, Jean—327 Sinibaldi, Antonio— 124
356 de Bugella, Ludovicus Gati—229 de Judicibus, Nicolaus—372 Snorphil de Allemania, Fr. Joannes—22
Scribe of Fiesole 152 — 74 Speroni, Bernardino—216
Scribe of V at. lat. 10669—230 Candour. Thomas—213 Lange, Gottfried— 151 Stolberger, Heinrich— 182
Capponi, Giovanni Vincenzo— 101 Leonardo da Colle—78 Strata, Alovsius de— 156
Alfonso de la Puebla—49 Cassarino, Antonio (?)—224 Leonardo da Udine, O. P.—314 Strozzi, Piero—339
Aniedei, Giuliano (?)—352 Castaldi, Giovanni di Niccolo—253 Leoni, Pier—359
Andrea da Firenze—325 Chouard, Jean—237 Leto, Pomponio—315
Teotonicus, Joannes— 177
Angelos. Konstantinos (?)—376 Cinico da Parma, Giovanni Marco—294 Lippi da Colle, Lorenzo—95 (?), 100
Ciriagio. Gherardo del—225, 320 Thomacellus, Marinus— 194
Antonio da Rho— 187 Lochner, Jakob—357
Traherne, Thomas— 139
Antonio de Lebrija—259 Cranebroke, Henry— 150 Lublinius, Bernardus— 123
de Crivellis. Antonius— 189 Traversagni, Giovanni Antonio—358
Antonius Marii— 75 Ludovicus de Gavilla—57
Czelfkendorf, Joseph—278 Traversagni, Lorenzo Guglielmo—358
Archibald. P. N. — 149
Attavante—76-77 Malaspina, Leonardo Marchio—299
Decembrio. Modesto— 158 Manyngham, John—52 Ubertino da Parma—310
Baptista Augustensis—276 Decembrio, Pier Candido— 11, 141, 158, Marcatellis, Raphael de— 121
Baronio, Cesare—299 163, 167, 168, 173, 198, 282, 356 Marcus Spenimbergensis—45 Vespucci, Giorgio Antonio—44, 393
Bartholellus, Petrus Marcus—61 Decembrio, Uberto— 158 Marescotti Calvi, Agamemnone—24 Veterani, Federico—318
Barzizza, Gasparino— 191 Doget, John (?)— 129 Mariano del Buono—40 Vettori, Pier—66
Behairn. Joannes—279 Dominicus Flastrensis—315 Masullus, Arnaldus—43 Virot, Guillaume—232
Bembo, Bernardo—283 Morali Serafico, Antonio (?)—243 Vizanus, Pyrrhus—91
Bernardus Manni de Civitargli—254 Eberharclus, Ravinundus—65 Volterranus, Robertus—324
Berto Antonio di Berto— 16b "Eurialus, Nisus” — 281 Nansius, Franciscus—Cat. C, no. 17
Bcssanon—327, 385 Nicolaus Comensis—331 Wenceslaus de Krizanow—244
Bibi. Tonituaso— 154 Fabiani, Luca—69, 221 Nicolaus Cusanus—33, 125, 126, 385 Woodlorde, Thomas— 206
Bongars. Jacques—21 Feliciano, Felice—370 Niccoli, Niccolo—59
Bracciolini. Poggio—59 Ferrent ini, Melchior—330 Niccoiini, scribe—263
824 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 825

4. Index of Owners or Vendors of Manuscripts Goodspeed, Charles F.—60 Morelli, Giacomo— 368
Gradi, Stefano—350 Mossoczv, Zacharias— 37 (?)
Acquaviva d ’Aragona, Matteo— 190 Cattaneo. Niccolo Grillo— 117 Gray, William—211, 212 Murano, S. Michele— 177
Aisthecimus, Robertus— 227 Cervini, Marcello—301, 302, 332 Grimani, Marino—284, 332 Murray, Charles Fairfax— 196
Albani library— 180 Chiemsee, chapter library— 184 Guarnerio d’Artegna—262
Albergati, Domenico— 86, 114 Chouard, Jean—237 Gunthorpe, John—227 Naples, Aragonese royal library— 223
Alessandro di Pietro, O. P. — 97 Giceri, Francesco— 158, 160, 163 Naples, Convent of S. Severino— 194
Alexander VIII. pope— 271 Cistelli—88 Hey wood. Joseph—356 Niccolini library— 13.3
Allen, Samuel— 44 Cockerell, Sir Sidney—44 Hofer, Philip—40 Nicolaus Cusanus— 33, 125, 126, 144.385
Altemps. Giovanni Angelo— 301-304 Colbert, Jean-Baptiste—226. 231 Humfrey, Duke of Gloucester— 141, 356 Nix, Richard, Bp. of Norwich— 55
Alton, E. H. — 195 Colocci, Angelo—333 Hunter, Aaron Burtis— 12 Numagen, Petrus— 392
Amboise, Georges d ’ — 225 Colon, Fernando—267, 269 Hynde, Thomas—206
Amidei. Johannes Petrus— 24 Gomucci. Thomaso de’—42 Olschki, dealers— 40
Aragon, Royal Library— 223 Congearius, J . —389 Joannes Andreae de Nyssa—278 Orsini. Fulvio— 336, 337, 338. 339. 340.
Aragona, Giovanni d' — 225 Corner family—154 John XXIII. antipope—59 (?) 341, 342, 343
Archinti, Carlo— 15 Corvinus. Mathias, King of Hungary— Jouffrov, Jean— 144, 327 Orsini. Giordano— 292, 293
Aurispa. Giovanni— 63 (?) 58. 176, 379 Judicibus, Nicolaus de—372 Oxford University— 356
Cranmer, Thomas— 150
Bacci. Giovanni— 131 (?) Cues, Hospitalbibliothek— 144 Kasrer, Rudbertus, O. P.—375 Padovano, Alessandro, of Fori)— 13
Baldana, Bartolomeo—330 Komburger Bibliothek—274, 275 Pallavicino, Paolo— 124
Barbara, Ermolao—332 Daimases i Ros, En Pau Ignasi—2 Panetti, Battista— 63. 64
Barberini family—393 Davalos, Inigo— 173 (?), 189, 300 Lancilotus. magister—28 Paris, Abbey of St. Victor— 236
Barrois, Jean-Baptiste-Joseph— 17 Decembrio family— 158 Landucci, Giulio—30 Paris. Augustinian Friars— 238
Bartolelli family— 61 Dee, John—206 Langen, Heinrich and Johann— 151 Parrhasius, Janus— 191, 192
Barzizza. Gasparino—387 de la Mare, Philibert—232 Laurentius magister— 133 Paul V, pope— 329
Beccadelli, Antonio (Panormita)—336, Della Rovere. Domenico—282 La Valliere. Louis-Cesar, Due de— 116 Pedevilla, Antonius— 25
337, 340 De Rossi, Giovanni Bernardo—241 Leheure, Martinus—278 Pelhrimov, Matthias de— 245
Beckx, P.—359 Didot, Firmin—44 Lenzi, Francesco, da Peretola—90 Petau, Paul and Alexander— 311
Bembo, Bernardo—283 ■'DMK” —45 Libri, Guglielmo— 16 Peutinger family— 143
Bernardi, Luca Antonio de’—81 Donatus Clementi de Torta—227 Lobkovicz, Bohuslaus Hassenstein a—246 Phillipps, Sir Thomas— 9, 18, 181, 198.
Bessarion—360 Duggan library— 195 Loher Sani., R .—306 386, 393
Binis. Tullius de—386 Durazzo. Giacomo Filippo— 117 Lomelinus, D .—51 Piccolomini family— 271
Bodlev, Thomas— 206 Lumlev, John, Lord— 150 Piccolomini Todeschini, Francesco— 352
Bologna, S. Domenico—26 Eck, Oswald and Anna von—274, 275 Pius II, pope— 325
Bologna, S. Salvatore—27, 28, 29, 30 Madrid, S. Bartolomeo—259 Pizolpasso, Francesco— 164
Boncompagni, Baldassare—91 Farnese, Fabio—341 Maffei library— 138 Plieningen, Dietrich von— 274
Borghese, Scipione—329 Farsetti, Tommaso Giuseppe—365 Malaspina, Leonardo Marchio—299 Probasco, Henry— 43
Bourdelot, Pierre—327 Ferrante, King of Naples— 145 Manetti Giannozzo— 183 (?), 305
Brassicanus. Joannes Alexander—379 Ferrari, Ottaviano— 160 Manzoni, Giacomo— 12, 13 Regensburg, Dominican convent— 185
Brembati, Antonio—5 Fichet, Guillaume—237 Marcanova, Giovanni—362, 364, 366, Reguardatus Nursinus. Carolus— 277
Brigonnet, Guillaume—225 Fillastre, Guillaume—248 387 Reims, cathedral chapter— 248
Burgess, E. S.—60 Florence, S. Marco—44, 98, 99, 393 TMarcatellis, Raphael de— 118, 121 Richelieu, Armand-Jean du Plessis.
Florence, S. Maria Novella—87, 97 Marston, Thomas E. — 197 Cardinal— 237
Caen, Benedictine Abbey—310 Florence. Ognissanti—96 Mayora, Miguel de. of Barcelona—43 Rinuccini, Carlo— 98
Caesura, Franciscus Antonius— 254 Florence, S. Salvatore— 72 Medici, Cosimo de’— 75, 78, 208 Robert ap John ap Wvllam— 1
Cambridge, King’s College— 141 Florence, S. Spirito— 19 Medici, Lorenzo de’—68, 71, 76-77, 1 16 Rome, Collegio Romano— 358
Cambridge, St. John’s College— 149 Fugger, Johann Jakob— 183, 305, 382 Medici, Piero di Cosimo de’— 74, 78 Rome, S. Andrea della Valle— 145
Camerti, Ottaviano Eleno— 281 Megk, Paulus— 185 Roscoe, William— 128
Campori, Giuseppe— 178 Gaguin, Robert—311 Melchior von Meckau—33 Rosenthal, dealer— 60
Capell, J. Hynder— 150 Garcia, Alonso, of Cartagena—258 Milan, Jesuit College— 171 Rossi, Niccolo— 252-254
Capestrano, Franciscan convent— 193 George of Trebizond—348 (?) Milan, S. Maria delle Grazie— 158 Rucellai, Bernardo— 252
Capilupi family— 142, 250 Ghisilardus, Bartolomeus—296, 378 Milan, S. Maria Incoronata— 156, 159 Rustichelli family— 197
Capponi, Cardinal— 101 Gibson. John— 146 Miranda, Conde de— 152
Cassurino, Antonio— 224 Giraldi, Giovanni—93 Montefeltro, Federigo da—316, 318-320 Sambucus, Joannes— 376, 378
Castiglione, Zenone— 310 Gnaciis, Philippus de— 146 Morali Serafico, Antonio— 243 Sanuto, .Marino, the Younger— 371
Morbio, Carlo—8, 14, 15 Sassetti, Francesco— 137
826 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 827

Schedel. Hartmann— 182 Valori, Filippo— 116 1463—331 1487, Ulm—357

Schialfini. Prospero— 14b Vespasiano da Bisticci—320 1463, Rome—325 1488— 107
Scotti, Alberto— 146 Venice, S. Giovanni in Verdara—362. (1463/64, Florence)—221 1491—68, 145
Scvllacius, Nicolaus—338 364, 366 1463/69 Florence— 134 (ca. 1493), Florence—246
Seripandi, Antonio— 189, 191, 192 Venice, SS. Giovanni e Paolo—361 (1464, Florence)—208, 239, 242 1495, Bologna— 109
Serra Petrona, Franciscan convent — 42 (?) Venice, Somaschi della Salute—367 1464/69, Bologna—364 1496—91
Serra S. Quirico, Franciscan convent—42 Vespucci, Giorgio Antonio—393 1465, (Ferrara?)— 195 1499— 124
Vienna, Palace library— 194 1466, Bologna—362, 366 1501, Naples—252
Simoni, Giovanni— 102 Virot. Guillaume—232 1467—61, 268 (1502/3)—200
Sirleto. Gugliehno—302, 332 Visconti library, Pavia—47 1470, (Florence)—87 1504— 102
Soranzo, Jacopo—209 1470, Padua—276 1505— 123
Spcroni, Bernardino—216 VVidman de Kemnat, Matthias—307 1471—318 1517—343
Spinellis. Petrus de— 1313 Witten, Laurence, dealer— 197 1472, Florence—225, 320 1524/27. (St. Georgenberg)—65
Strozzi family—94 Worsly, Henry— 141 1472/73, (Rome)—315 1525— 188
Wright. John— 145 (1473/86, England)— 129 1541—382
begrimi, Minutoli — 44. 178
1475, Bruges—86, 114 1550— 19
L rhino. Dukes of— 316-323 Zeno, Apostolo— 174 1478, Ferrara—275 1551, (Florence)—66
1479, Hamburg— 182 1567—61
1481, Aquila—254 1569, Strasbourg—21
5. Index oj Dated and Datable iManuscripts2 1483— 119 1665, Flanders—35
1487— 121 1724— 101
(ca. 1409/11, Florence)—59 1444—272
1414, Florence—855 1445 — 37
(before 1416?)— 186 1446—41 6. L i bn annotati
(1416, Constance)—248 1446/1456— 263
1416, F'eodisiya— 146 1446, Ancona— 165 Plepp, Salamon—61
fAnonvmous—4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 19, 25,
1417, Bruges—48 1448, Mainz—306 Postel, Guillaume—21
33, 48, 49, 56, 62, 69, 92, 95, 103, 110,
(ca. 1421, Padua)— 154 1448—9, 241 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques—79
141
1424— 369 (ca. 1450), Naples—43 Ruhnken, David— 136
1425— 338 Burney, Charles— 124
1451/3, Faenza—28 Clerus, Nicolaus (anon, notes on his Salmasius, Claudius— 148
1426— 14 1452—222, 334 Seebach, Peter—8, 89
lectures)— 116
1427, Florence—75 1452, Bologna— 151 Tasso, Torquato—52, 89
Creuzer, Friedrich—5
1428—280 1453, Florence—229 Verinus II, Franciscus—71
Fabricius, J. A. — 148
(1428/33?, Florence?)—255 1453, Rome—327 Jonson, Ben— 136
1429, Milan— 110 1453/62 — 144
1430—299 1454—324
1433, Genoa— 189 1454, (Florence)— 169 7. Index of Printers and Publishers
1484—310 1454, (Germany)—256
1434, Florence—229 1454, Padua— 283 Abate, Alexandre 15 Bonelli. Giovanni Maria 95, (203)
1434/5, Lucca— 197 1456— 372 Anton, Wilhelm 142 Breitkopf and Haertels 179
1436— 14 1457— 358 Arigis de Gesoriaco, Leonardus de, suppo­
1487, (Milan?)— 168 1457, Florence—78 sitious printer 13 Caldorian Society 148
1437, Ferrara—85 1457, Milan— 156 Aubrius, Johannes, Heirs of 147 Calvarin, Prigent 39, 39 bis, 48, 49; see
(1437/38, .Milan)— 167 1458— 314 also Addenda
(ca. 1438, Milan)— 141 (1458/59)—385 Badius Ascensius, Jodocus 15, 23, 32, Caesar, Nicolaus 33
1438, St. Mihiel—257 1458, (Ferrara?)—207, 210 35, 37, 46 Carlieri 160
1439, Castiglione— 177 1459— 253 Baldino, Vittore 143 Choris. Bernardinus de 8
(1439/43, Milan)— 164 1459, Bologna—244 Bechet, Denys 156 Crantz, Matthias 1
1441 — 193 1459, (Oxford)— 150 Benenatus, Joannes 116, 119 Cratander, Andreas 34
(ca. 1441, Milan)—856 1460, Ancona—349 Beringi Fratres 71 Creed, John 157, 158
(ca. 1442, Oxford)—212 1461/67—370 Bertault, Jules 154 Cruftanus, Servatius 34
Bertramus, Antonius 138, 140 Curry, William 193
Bipontina, Societas 175
Birckmann, Arnold, Heirs ot 113 Davest, Claudius 20
All dates given Old Style. Dates or places not in parenthesis are based on colophons Bogard, Jacques 61-63 David, Matthew 76, 86; see (201)
in the manuscript itself. Bohn, C. E. 176 Delalain, Auguste 183-188, 192
 828 P A R T III C A TA LO G S 829

Des Tournes, Jean 79, 145 Liechtenstein, Peter 27 Valpv, A. J. 191 Webster, Thomas 161
Douglas, Francis 171 Lochner, Christoph 139 Vascosanus, Michael 47, 68, 77, 80 Wechel, Christian 72, (201)
Dublin University Press 193, (205) Loeus, Joannes 65, 81 Velpius, Raynerus 84 Wechel, Johann 135
Vietor, Hieronymus 42 Whlkins, Richard 161
Eckhardt, Johann David Adam 176 Manutius, Aldus 10, 12, 29 Vincente, Antoine 71, 96, 111, 115 Williams, E. 180
Egenolph, Christian 51, 58 Marchant, Guy 11 (204) Whittaker and Co. 196
Egenolph, Paul 134, 144 Marnius, Claudius 147 Vincente, Nathaniel 132
Episcopius, Nicolaus 43, 52, 67, 73, 82, Martinus, Theodericus 22 Vincente, Simon 20 Zannis, Augustinus de 27
88, 109 Mey, Joannes, of Flanders 69 Zimmerman, Michael 101
Estienne, Henri II 124 Misinta, Bernardinus 13 Waldkirch, Conrad 129, 130, 133
Morel, Guillaume 90, 97, 99, 100, 103 Waterloes, Joannes 21
Faber. Franciscus 151 (?), 104, 106
Firmin-Didot, Ambroise 195, 197, 198, Mueller, J, J., Heirs of 177
(199)
Fletcher, James 166, 169, 172, 173, 174 Nardus, Simeon Nicolai 16
Frellonius, Joannes 75
Frellonius, Paulus 150 Oporinus, Joannes 57, 70, 74, 87, 89
Friburger, Michel 1 93, 94
Friedberg, Peter 9 Othmar, Svlvan 26
Fritsch, Caspar 165 Oxford University Press 163, 166, 167,
Froben, Hieronvmus 43, 52, 67, 73, 82, 169, 172, 173, 174, 181, 189, (206)
109, 128
Froscher, Christoph 60, 74, 102, (202) Paffroet, Richard 3, 17
Pasinello, Angiolo 162, 168
Gering, Ulric 1 Perier, Charles 85, 98
Gredv and Breuning 182 Perna, Petrus 120, 122, 125
Grothenius, Conradus 127 Petit, Jean 11, 46
Grvphius, Sebastian 40, 45, 50, 54. 59, Petri, Heinrich 108, 121
66, 78, 91 Petrus, Adam 31
Gvmnicus, Joannes 53 Peypus, Fridericus 24, 38
Gueullartius, Joannes: see Addenda Pincius, Philippus 30
Gutgesell, David 123 Plantin, Christopher 112
Pote, T. 178, 180
Hachette, Louis 194 Priestly, Richard 191
Hayes, John 157, 158, 159 Pulchridrapensis de Burgofrancho, Jaco­
Henricpetri, Sebastian 131, 146, 155 bus 28
Hevder, C. 190
Hofmann, Johann 139 Reiner, G. 189
Rembolt, Bertholdus 21
Isengrinius, Michael 44 Rhodius, I. 149
Richard, Thomas 64 (?), 83, 92, 105,
Jacobus de Breda 14, 19 107, 110
Jeffery, Edmund 159 Roncalioli, Giovanni Domenico 152,
Johannina (Printer of Barbatia) 2 153
John of Westphalia 4 Rotarius, Martinus 84, (200)
Justianus de Herberia 36
Schumans, Valentinus 25
Kachelofen, Conrad 6, 7 Scotus, Hieronymus 117, 126
Knoblouch, Johannes 18 Secerus, Johannes 41
Simkin and Marshall 193
Langenheim 170 Stoer, Jacobus 141
Laurentius Venetus 5
Le Jeune, Martin 85 Tiletanus, Johannes Lodovicus 56
Le Maire, Guillaume 136, 137 Toresanus de Asulo, Andreas 8
Le Preux, Francois 136 Turnebe, Adrien 90
 C A TA LO G S 831

GENOA, Biblioteca Universitaria NAPLES, Biblioteca Nazionale

C VII 46 (Gaslini 49) 588-593 IV G 55 4
VIII F 9 279
I N D E X O F M A N U S C R I P T S N O T IN C A T . A LEIDEN, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniver-
siteit NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, Bei-
necke Library, Yale University
BASEL, Universitatsbibliothek BPG 5 801
----- , Legazioni e commission!, Elezioni e BPG 25, vol. VII 807 Marston 60 122
C VI a 54 800 istruzioni di oratori, vol. 7 385f.
F IV 27 479 Papenbroekiani Pap. 2 806 OXFORD, Bodleian Library
------, Signori, Missive, la Cancelleria,
F VI 10 479 vol. 35 405 LONDON, British Library Canon, class, lat. 304 376
F IX 1 479 Archivio Mediceo avanti il Principato Canon, misc. 19 (2) 415
F IX 13 479 Add. 10,344 497, 500
XXI 149 798 Add. 21,245 416
G I 25 806 Carte Strozzi-Uguccione, 3a ser., vol. OXFORD, Corpus Christi College
Frev-Grynaeus II 8 805n. Harl. 3262 261
86 802 96 480
Ki. Ar. 43 479 LUCCA, Biblioteca Governativa
Ki. Ar. G I 7, pt. I 479 FLORENCE, Biblioteca Xlediceo-Lau- PADUA, Biblioteca Universitaria
M g III. 4-6 805 renziana 1396 436
1499 376-377
Rektoratsmatrikel 807 XXV. sin. 9 377 MADRID, Biblioteca Nacional
XXXVI. 35 315 PARIS, Bibliotheque Nationale
BERGAMO, Biblioteca Civica 7806 97
LXI, 11 373 espagnol 458 97
Gamma IV 19 261 LXIII, 30 415, 416 MARBURG, Universitatsbibliothek lat. 1678 596
LXV, 21 81 lat. 9683 416
BOLOGNA, Biblioteca Comunale del 801 805
I.XXVI, 55 456
FArchiginnasio PARMA, Biblioteca Palatina
LXXIX, 19 376, 384 MILAN, Archivio di Stato
B 3472 416 LXXX, 24 439 Pal. 245 71
Autograft 127, 3, Serie 1 407
LXXXV, 9 306, 307, 320
BUDAPEST. National Szechenvi Library PERUGIA, Biblioteca Comunale Augusta
LXXXIX, inf. 48 81, 306 MILAN, Biblioteca Ambrosiana
Clmae 185 273 Conv. soppr. 78 308 C 16 168
D 112 inf. 416
Conv. soppr. 103 308 I 235 inf. 86,118,588-593
BURGO DE OSMA, Biblioteca del Cate- Conv. soppr. 180 308 PESARO, Biblioteca Oliveriana
dral D 105 sup. 121, 149, 596
Conv. soppr. 445 416 E 90 sup. 421 1381 416
122 416 Strozzi 64 64, 81 Q 46 sup. 436 PESCIA, Biblioteca Capitolare
CAMBRIDGE, MASS., Harvard Uni­ FLORENCE, Biblioteca Marucelliana S 99 sup. 261
V 10 sup. 404 Scaff. XXIII, Palch. VI, op. 11, no.
versity, Houghton Library
B VIII 15, t'asc. 12 416 11 71
Lat. 225 807 MILAN, Biblioteca Braidense
Lat. 307 807 FLORENCE, Biblioteca Nazionale Cen- PISA, Biblioteca Universitaria
trale A H XII 16 140, 575, 576
CESENA, Biblioteca .Vlaiatestiana 234 438
Conv. soppr. C 4. 895 78 MILAN, Biblioteca Trivulziana
D 28. 4 424, 427-428 Ginori-Conti 29: 64c, item 7 (Carte PRAGUE. Statni knihovna
873 90, 404, 406, 417, 515
Michelozzi) 486 Roudnice VI Fa 1 805
COLOGNY-GENEVA, Bibliotheca Bod-
Magi. XXI 15 273 MODENA, Biblioteca Estense
meriana PRINCETON, N.J., Princeton Universi­
Naz . II IV 250 71 Camp. App. 110 [Gamma O 5, 7] 421
136 369, 385 Naz . II X 57 71 ty Library
Est. lat. 597 [Alpha N 5, 8] 415
DRESDEN, Sachsische Landesbibliothek 44 416
FLORENCE, Biblioteca Riccardiana MONTSERRAT, Biblioteca del Monestir
C 65 806 60 801 SALAMANCA, Biblioteca Universitaria
882 620
70 463 2614 97
EL ESCORIAL, Biblioteca de El Escorial 76 464 MUNICH, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
O II 15 416 96 438 SANTANDER, Biblioteca Menendez v
CGM 547 442 Pelayo
152 407
FLORENCE, Archivio di Stato 827 130, 146.. 421, 576-588 MUNICH, Universitatsbibliothek 37 97
Archivio della Repubblica, Consulte e 893 416
practiche, vol. 48 .386 Fol. 692 801
3022 416
 832
PART III

SEVILLE, Biblioteca Colombina y Vat. lat. 5133 458

Capitular
Vat. lat. 7705 484
7-4-20 130, 576-588
VENICE, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana IN D E X O F N A M ES
SOUTH BEND, IND., University of Marc. gr. 193 (403) 442
Notre Dame Library
Marc. lat. XI 142 (6675) 798. 799n.
43 416 Marc. lat. XIII 62 (4418) 798 Abelard, Peter 253n. Anonvmus Florentinus 798
Zan. lat. 230 (1672) 218 Acciaiuoli, Donato 288, 298, 408 Anonvmus Hungaricus 800
URBANIA, Biblioteca Comunale Acciaiuoli, Zanobi 13, 349n., 454, 455. Anonymus Lugdunensis 801, 808
VI 14 (stampati) 799 VERONA, Biblioteca Capitolare 457, 458 Anonvmus Marcianus 798
CCLVII 215 Adam 461, 462 Anonymus Vaticanus 797
VALLADOLID, Biblioteca de Santa Adelmann, Bernard 705-706, 752 Anselm of Canterbury, Saint 586, 637
Cruz VIENNA. Oesterreichische Nationalbi- Aemstelredamus, Alardus 756 Antisthenes 93n.
325 126. 127, 130, 146, 576-588 bliothek Aeneas Gazaeus 464n. Antoninus of Florence, Saint 280, 348,
10056 438 Aeschines 12In., 380, 381 455, 456. 458
VATICAN CITY, Biblioteca Apostolica Aeschines Socraticus 307n. Antonio da Rho 121n., 128n., 129, 131-
Vaticana WASHINGTON, D.C., Folger Shake­ Aeschylus 551 132, 138, 143n., 146n., 148-153, 164,
Barb. gr. 270 384 speare Library Aesop 85 361, 42In., 596-618; see also Addenda
Reg. lat. 1572 4 Va 123 798 Aetius 94n. Antonio de Lebrija 96
Vat. gr. 61 428 Aglaophemus 283n., 286n.. 462, 463n.. Antonio di Mario, scribe 384
Vat. gr. 1033 436 WROCLAW, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka 464 Antonius de Sicilia 376n.
Vat. lat. 2063 371 Akc 60/49 418 Agli, Antonio degli 279, 348, 456, 458 Apelles 73
Vat. lat. 2096 129 Rehdiger 17 86 Agricola, Rudolf 166, 746, 750, 756, Appian 373n.
Vat. lat. 4037 436 798, 804 Apollo 461
Akindynos, Gregory 195 Apostolis, Michael 209, 214n., 220,
Albergati, Niccolo 406 232. 439
Alberti, Leon Battista 73n., 213, 438 Apuleius 4n., 131 n., 185n., 214, 215,
Albertus Magnus, Saint 4n., 6n., 90n., 270n., 279, 345n., 524, 564, 575, 627,
206, 222, 247, 248, 409, 458 797
Albinus (Alcinous) 207n., 631, 754, Aquinas, Thomas 3, 196, 206, 222, 235,
755, 763, 791 247. 249n., 253n., 261n., 276, 280,
Albizzi, Rinaldo degli 76 290, 358, 409, 445-447, 455, 456
Albumasar 303 Aratus 800n.
Alcibiades 80, 467 Archimedes 86
Alcidus 34n. Arcimboldi, Niccolo 149-153, 163, 596-
Alexander V, antipope 53, 106, 107, 1 18, 601, 603-606, 608, 611-617
382 Argyropoulos, John 3, 196, 209n., 216,
Alexander of Aphrodisias 219, 243, 234n., 237n., 275, 288, 298. 299,
257n., 274, 275n., 441, 442n., 447, 451 310n., 315n., 350, 416n., 417, 774
Alexander the Great 445, 513 Aristarchus 313
Alfonso de Palencia 174 Aristides, Aelius 169n., 230n., 307n.
Alfonso of Aragon, King of Naples 118, Aristippus of Cvrene 93n.
155, 158, 167, 278 Aristippus, Henricus 4, 41, 46-47, 48n.,
Alighieri, Dante 32, 33, 36, 276, 303, 308n., 370, 37ln., 379, 388
372, 373 Aristophanes 85, 239n., 602, 806
Allen, Michael J. B. 341, 485 Aristotle XVn., 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 20n., 23,
Altividius: see Alcidus 25, 26, 32n., 34, 38, 39n., 45n., 46, 58,
Amboise, Georges d’ 506 60, 63-65, 70, 91, 93-94, 98, 116, 117,
Ambrose, Saint 145, 149 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128n.,
Amelius 346, 433n. 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 139, 140n.,
Amerbach, Basilius II 800 142, 143, 144-145, 149-153, 157, 160,
Amerbach, Bonifacius 800, 806 168, 174, 180, 182, 187, 188, 205-210,
Amidano, Zenone 124, 421 222, 223, 227, 228-240, 242-252, 255-
Amideo, Giovanni 133, 532 259, 272n., 273, 274, 279, 284n., 293.
Ammonius 284, 346 319, 324, 325, 333, 334, 337n.. 340,
Andreas Bohemus 783 349. 350, 351, 352, 354, 363. 376n.,
 83 4 INDEX OF N A MES IN D E X O F NAME S 835

381, 386. 41 On., 417, 418n., 437, 441, Bartolomeo da Montepulciano 60n., 82 Bornio da Sala 84 Cambiatore, Tommaso 62n.
442. 444, 445-448, 451, 479n.. 481n., Barzizza. Gasparino 90n., 98, 124, 166 Boschius, Michael 782-83 Camerarius, Joachim 801, 804, 806, 807
515, 516, 518. 532, 557, 561, 575, 581- 412, 525 Bottoni, Diego 412 Camotius: see Camozzi
82. 583, 584, 585. 588. 589, 591, 594. Basil of Caesarea, Saint 32n., 52n., 60, Boulers, Reginald, bishop of Hereford 670 Camozzi, Giovanni Battista 804
595, 599-614, 616-618. 635, 636, 639, 64, 251, 283n., 297, 373, 377, 381, 441, Bourchier, Thomas, cardinal 498, 692 Campano, Giovanni Antonio 98, 350n.
654, 655, 658. 660, 663 750, 757, 774, 554, 637, 639, 641 Bourdelot, Jacques 787 Campeggio, Lorenzo 641
779, 780, 781, 784-85, 786, 797, 799n., Bavguera, Bartolomeo 48 Bourle, Jacques: see Burlaeus, Jacobus Cane, Facino 107, 114
804. 806, 807 Beatus Rhenanus 806 Bovadilla Mendoza, Franciscus, cardinal- Canobius, Antonius 417
Arnaldus de Berestevn 692 Beccadelli. Antonio, “ il Panormita" 81, bishop of Burgos 766 Canter, Jacobus, of Frisia 742
Asclepius 433n.. 461, 462, 540, 555, 129, 131-132, 134, 155, 158-159, 349, Braccesi, Alessandro 298 Canutius, Johannes 84
556, 572 555 Bracciolini, Jacopo di Poggio 370 Capra, Bartolomeo 369, 375n., 378n.
Athenaeus 402, 409 Bekker, Immanuel 794 Bracciolini, Poggio 31, 48, 51n., 53, 59. Capranica, Niccolo 220
Athenagoras 743 Bellarmine, Robert 13, 252 63n ., 81, 82, 86, 118, 120n., I29n.. Carmagnola, Francesco Bussone, Count oj
Augustine. Aurelius, Saint 4. 5, 7, 8, 12. Bembo, Bernardo 304n.. 367. 369, 131n., 167, 181,228n., 270, 368n., 370. 12On.
34, 35, 37. 38n.. 39, 51n.. 59, 64. 91, 370n., 371 372n., 373. 375. 404, 438, 589 Casa, Fra Tedaldo della 377n.
92. 94. 95, 135. 136, 141, 149, 151, Bend, Amerigo 300, 308n. Brigonnet, Guillaume 96 Casaubon, Isaac 48In.
205, 207, 234, 243n., 251, 259. 277, Benedict of Nursia, Saint 18 Brunelleschi, Filippo 73n., 341 Casotti, Giovanni Battista 789, 804
279, 283n., 284, 287, 337, 338. 346n.. Benivieni, Antonio 487, 622 Bruni, Leonardo 3, 5, 15, 21-, 24, 29-33, Cassarino, Antonio 5, 91, 154-160, 164.
347, 355. 358, 411, 441, 447, 460, 461, Bentham, E. 790 34n., 39-76, 78-81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 91, 307, 416n., 422-426, 427-428, 440, 472
462, 463, 464, 496, 497, 500, 522, 524, Bentivoglio. Sante 227 92n., 94n., 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 105, Cassius Dio 373n.
580, 606, 618, 627, 635, 637, 638, 641, Benvenuta, concubine 61 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, Castiglione, Guarnerio 140n.
655, 656, 657 Benzi, Ugo 437 127, 128, 129, 135, 140, 151, 153, 154, Castiglioni, Branda, cardinal 124
ps.-Augustine 417 Berlinghieri, Francesco 301 156, 165, 169, 174-175, 189, 2 0 7 ,213n., Castiglioni, Zenone 124, 125, 127n., 129
Aulus Gellius 55, 131n., 214n., 260. Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint 637, 638. 228n., 232, 233n., 237, 242, 268, 270, Catherine of Siena, Saint 31
33In., 596, 757. 799 641 273n., 279, 289, 306, 309n., 310, 312, Cato the Elder 373, 610
Aurispa, Giovanni 86, 168, 438 Bernardi, Luca di Antonio, da San 314, 317, 326n., 327, 328n., 351n., 363. Cato the Younger (of Utica) 38, I28n.,
Austen, Jane 360 Gemignano 269, 32In., 486 367-400, 402, 404n., 405, 406n., 421, 145, 148, 372. 373
Autumano, Simone 41n. Bertalot. Ludwig 379, 384, 670 437-438, 440, 465-469, 472, 487, 497, Cavalcanti, Giovanni 274n., 305n.,
Averroes 132, 144, 206n., 235, 246n., Berti, Ernesto 87, 380 506, 581-82, 601, 608, 618, 670, 797n. 464n., 484, 754
255n., 257n., 258, 274n., 275. 447 Bessarion, Cardinal 6, 7, 93, 95, 160, Bruno, Giordano 282 Cavalcanti, Ottone 378, 382, 383
Avicenna 206, 246n., 247, 248n., 274, 165, 167, 170, 173. 174, 181n., 184n., Brusch, Kaspar 766 Cebes (pseudo-) 743, 791, 801
447 186, 191-192, 193, 196, 197, 199n., Brutus 141, 143, 228, 559 Cedrenus 202
Axiochus 83 203n ., 208-236, 237, 241, 245-263, 274, Buccaferreus, Ludovicus 804 Cesarini, Giuliano, cardinal 85, 223n.
Azoguidis, Alexander de 409n., 411, 281, 285, 310, 313n., 314, 324n., Bude, Guillaume 25, 479 Ceva, Niccolo 66, 427n.
524, 745 345n., 347. 350, 351n., 355, 357, 358, Buonaccorsi, Filippo (Callimachus Ex- Chalcondyles, Demetrius 209, 311
361. 364, 429, 431, 434, 436, 439, 440, periens) <200, 21 In., 212 Champier, Svmphorien 746
Bacchus 291 441-444, 445, 470-471, 472-473, 478, Burckhardt, Jakob 7, 117, 119 Chariander, George 438n.
Badius Ascensius, Jodocus 411, 452, 798 Burlaeus, Jacobus 804 Charles VIII, king of France 96
633, 750. 750. 755 Beurer, Johann Jakob 648-49, 654. 779, Burley, Walter 497 Charles of Lorrain, Cardinal de Guise 763
Balbi, Pietro 246n., 26In., 279n., 442 780 Bussi, Giovanni Andrea de’ 185n., 214 Charmides 313
Balbo. Scaramuccia 126 Beza, Theodore 778 Buxthudius, Nicolaus 747 Chenu, M.-D. 21n.
Bandini, Angelo Maria 415 Bibi da Cipro, Tommaso 412 Chomsky, Noam 189
Bandini, Francesco 305n., 320n., 324 Biondo, Flavio: see Flavio, Biondo Caesar, Julius 119, 143, 228n., 373n. Chortasmenos, Johannes 217
Barbarigo, Domenico 92n., 515, 522 Birago, Lampugnino 158n. Caesarius, Joannes 806 Christopher ot Carlebitz, ducal
Barbarigo, Girolamo 515, 522 Blanco, Giovanni 213, 214n. Calcidius 4, 131n., 205, 279, 310, 358, counselor 762
Barbara, Ermolao, the Elder 212n., Boccaccio, Giovanni 32, 33, 37, 39, 200 474, 479, 483, 526, 528, 797 Chrysoloras, Manuel 5, 22n., 29, 30, 39,
2 74n., 458 Bodetus, Michael 633, 750, 755 Calderini, Antonio 167 40n., 41, 44, 45n., 60n., 61n., 82, 85n.,
Barbara, Francesco 59n., 61, 98n., 140, Bodlev, Milo 778 Calderini, Domizio 215, 233n. 88, 98n., 105-109, 115n., 118, 119, 120,
166, 181, 591-92, 620, 797n. Boethius 92, 205, 251, 358n., 441, Calecas, Manuel 196 143n., 159, 310, 375, 380n., 412, 420-
Barbavara, Carlo 90n. 455n., 516, 562, 575, 637 Calixtus III, Pope 86, 118, 167 421, 471-472, 497, 526, 528, 586
Barbirianus, Jacobus 740 Boethius of Dacia 273 Callicles 55-57, 64, 327, 328n., 340n., Chrysokokkes, Georgios 217
Barbo, Pietro: see Paul II, Pope Boherus, Franciscus 758, 759 395-396 Chrysostomus, John, Saint 486n., 637,
Barlaam of Calabria 171, 194, 195, 196 Bollanus, Franciscus 304n. Callistratus 551, 611, 618 641
Baron, Hans 15, 62, 370, 371, 372, 376, Boncompagni, Filippo, cardinal 722 Callistus, Andronicus 209, 439, 798n. Cicero, Marcus Tullius 1, 4, 10, 22, 26.
379. 380-381, 384-386 Boninsegni, Giovanni Battista 311 Calvin, John 175 27. 30, 31n., 32, 35. 36, 39, 40, 41, 44,
Baronio. Cesare 252 Bornemizza, Gregorius 777 Camariotes, Matthew 208, 463n. 45, 46, 53, 55, 56, 63, 64, 67, 83n., 92.
836 IN D EX O F N A M E S IN D E X OF N A MES 837

100, 110, 112, 116, 121n., 122, 123, Decembrio, Uberto 5, 85n., 98n., 105- Epicurus 83, 91, 559, 565, 571, 801 Filelfo, Francesco 5, 61. 89-95, 96. 99.
128, 143, 151, 156. 157, 165, 168, 182. 1 17, 120, 127, 141n., 159, 229n., 279, Epimenides 500 117, 118, 129, 134, 148n., 158n.. 166.
190, 205, 243n., 270n., 273, 279, 313, 310, 352n., 412-413, 420, 424, 426, Er 344, 463n., 530, 547-48, 574 171n., 186n., 189, 196, 199n., 207, 216,
373n., 391, 397-398. 419. 423, 437, 471-472, 586, 587 Erasmus, Desiderius 31 In., 365, 479, 234n., 308n., 314, 373n.. 401-403, 404-
479, 480-481, 497, 505, 506, 519, 522, Decius, Philippus 632, 748 627, 804, 806 407, 408, 409, 410, 416n., 417, 418n.,
523, 525, 527-28, 537, 549, 550, 551, De’ Giudici, Battista 213 Erasmus, priest of Chemnitz 741 427, 436n., 437, 439
566, 568, 570, 574, 575, 576, 589, 595, Dei, Benedetto 271 Este. Borso d’ 119 Filelfo, Marco Aurelio 406n.
598, 603, 607. 608, 618, 625, 626, 627, Della Casa, Giovanni 789, 790, 804 Este, Ercole, d’ 804 Fillastre, Guillaume 38n., 87n.
634, 635, 637, 638, 639, 641, 642, 646- Della Torre, Arnaldo 280, 454, 483 Este, Niccolo d’ 797n. Fischer, Johann Friedrich 791, 792, 805
47, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 660, 661, Della Rovere, Giulio 799 Estienne, Henri II 481, 777-78, 781, Flandino, Ambrogio 732
665, 745, 799, 805, 807 Demetrio, Pietro 212 782, 783, 786, 791, 807 Flavio, Biondo 82
Cimon 55, 168 Demetrius of Phalerum, (pseudo-) 23 Estienne, Robert 48In. Fleury, Claude, abbe 312n.
Clement of Alexandria 12, 37n. Democritus 116n. Etwall, William 791 Forster, Nathaniel 790
Cola di Rienzo 212 Demosthenes 29, 56n., 66n., 121n., 187, Eugene III, Pope 637 Fosco, Angelotto 87. 88
Comandi, Comando di Simone 269 188n., 223n., 256, 376-378, 380, 381, Eugene IV, Pope 54, 81, 86, 87n., 88, Fox Morzillo, Sebastian 766, 767-68
Comnenos, Alexios IV 218 384n., 437, 450, 45ln., 595, 61 1, 628, 124, 148, 150n., 166, 220, 227, 416n.. Francesco da Castiglione 456
Condulmer, Francesco 87n. 654, 656 510, 599 Francesco da Fiano 48-49, 51, 375n.
Condulmer, Gabriele: see Eugene IV Diacceto, Francesco Cattani da 455n. Eugenicus, John 155, 427 Francis of Assisi, Saint 151, 610
Condulmer, Lucio 212 Diaz de Toledo. Pedro 97 Eugenicus, Mark 203n., 204n., 221, 437 Francis I. king of France 633
Contarini, Girolamo 799n. Dini, Piero di Antonio 27 In. Euripides 514, 570, 640, 641, 652, 807 Fregoso, Tommaso 155, 158
Contrarius, Andreas 173, 213, 215 Dio Chrysostom 406n. Eusebius 12, 13, 51n., 181n., I92n., Froben, Hieronymus 479, 804
Cop, Bernhard 781, 805 Diodorus Siculus 589 203n., 234, 236, 238n., 239n., 248, 252, Fubini, Riccardo 302
Corbinelli, Antonio 30 Diogenes Laertius 11. 59, 81, 8 In., 285, 359n., 445, 461, 462, 463 Fugger, Jerome 800
Cornarius, Achates 772 92n., 131n., 155, 260, 297n., 306. 307, Eustochius 317 Fugger, Johann Jakob 807
Cornarius, Janus 804-805 310, 325n., 331n., 339, 345n., 384n., Eustratius 63 Fulgentius 4n., 135n., 806
Cornford. Francis MacDonald XVIII 460n., 461, 522, 523, 524,629,658,665 Euthvphro 89, 331 Fulgosius, Raphael 90n.
Corradi. Sebastiano 481, 647, 805 Dion of Syracuse 77, 79, 80. 131n. Evangelista da Pisa 276
Corsi. Giovanni 277, 300n., 436n.. 454, Dionysius II, of Syracuse 76-79. 80n. Exter, Friedrich Christian 791 Gabriel of Venice, O.E.S.A. 703
455 Dionvsius Areopagita, (pseudo-) 64, Gaguin, Robert 96
Cortesi, Alessandro 450 165, 194, 196n.. 222n.. 223, 225, 238n., Fabianus a Dhon 783 Galen 128, 291, 654
Corvinus, Matthew 97 259, 260, 277, 283, 284, 301, 315, 316, Febvre, Lucien 199 Ganay, Germain de 485
Costabili, Alberto 120 345, 355, 444, 460, 461 Federigo da Montefeltro, Duke of Ur- Garcia, Alonso, of Cartagena, bishop of
Cousin, Gilbert 785-86 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 23 bino 305, 418n. Burgos 96, 122-123, 125, 127n., 128n.,
Cremona, Antonio 129 Dodds, E. R. 55. 326, 327 Feliciano, Felice, of Verona 52n. 130, 133, 137, 138n., 140n., 146, 213n.,
Cresci, Migliore 305 Dogget, John 497f., 692 Fernando of Cordova 155, 211 392, 413n., 414, 418n., 532, 535, 548,
Cuboclesios, John 170 Dolfin, Pietro 348 Ferobans, Paulus 321 559, 577-92
Cujas, Jacques 786 Domenico da Fiandria 349n. Ferrante of Aragon, King of Naples 119 Garigliano, Pompeo, of Capua 787
Curio, Giacomo 158 Domenico da Pistoia, Fra 301 Ferrerius, Joannes, of Piedmont 752, Garin, Eugenio 15-16, 57, 207, 409, 437
Cvdones, Demetrius 171, 196 Dominici, Giovanni 13, 31, 38-40, 52, 755, 761 Gatto, Giovanni 222n.
Cyprian of Carthage, Saint 632 52n., 54. 59, 212n., 348, 398, 456 Feuer, L. S. 16 Gaza, Theodore 164, 188n., 203, 208-
Cyril of Alexandria, Saint 251. 442 Donato. Bernardo 438n. Fichet, Guillaume 96, 98, 215-216 209, 210, 220, 238n., 439, 798
Donatus 4n., 139n. Ficino, Alessandra 278 Gemistus, Georgius, called Pletho 155,
Damascenus. Nicolaus 463n. Donne, John 84 Ficino, Dietifeci 269, 280, 291 171, 172, 173, 193, 197-209, 213, 216,
Damascius 346 Dorat, Jean 806 Ficino, Marsilio 4, 5, 6, 24n., 40n., 66, 218-220, 221, 222n., 234, 239-240, 244,
Dandolo, Marco 385 Dorp, Martin 746 70, 76, 81,91,93, 95, 96, 164, 180, 186, 256n., 274, 280, 282, 285, 303, 436-
Dardano, Bernardino 711 Drascovithius, Georgius 770 197, 199n., 207, 223n., 226, 231n., 233, 440, 441, 458, 460, 463, 594-95, 800,
Dati, Agostino 96, 408-411 Dugo Philonius, Joannes 307n., 766, 235, 241, 249, 261, 263, 267-359, 361- 807
Dati, Niccolo 408, 744 805 362, 364, 365, 366, 370n., 418, 421n., Genouille, J. 794
David of Dinant 457-458 Duns Scotus 222 423-426, 434n., 435, 436, 438, 439n., Gentile, Sebastiano 484
Decembrio, Angelo 127n. 441, 445, 447-448, 450, 452, 454-485, Georges d’Amboise 96
ecem )rio, Pier Candido 5, 79, 86n. Eco, Umberto 366 486n., 487, 628-29, 630-31, 634, 643, George, Marquess of Brandenburg 753
106, 107, 108n., 109, 17- 154, 156 Einstein, Albert 16 644-47, 648, 652, 656-57, 659-64, 798, Gerardus a Groysbeeck 774
158. 159, 163 164, 165 18 1, 86n. Eliot, George 360 799, 805, 806, 807, 808 Gerson, Jean 225n.
189, 229n 24 2. 244, 3 4, 518. 351 Elizabeth I. queen of England 111 Field, Arthur 276 Gesner, Konrad 805
352. 361, 406 n , 412-414, 415 -421 423 Embser, Johann 175 Filargis, Peter, of Candia: see Alexander Gevler de Kavserberg, Joannes 631, 745
426. 439, 472. 597-614 Epictetus 451, 807 V, Pope Ghiberti, Lorenzo 73-74
838 IN D E X O F N A M E S IN D E X O F N A MES 839

Giglinus, Simoninus 580 Herwart, Johann Georg 801 John Italus 199n. Lucretius 270n., 279, 457
Giles of Viterbo, O.E.S.A. 635, 751, Hesiod 315n., 452, 486n., 487n., 552, Joseph, patriarch oj Constantinople 203n. Luiso, Francesco Paolo 370, 385
807 562, 573, 575, 625, 647 Jouffroy, Jean 429n. Luna, Niccolo della 349
Gilles. Pieter, of Antwerp 746 Hierotheus 283n., 284 Jowett, Benjamin XVIII Luther, Martin 804, 806
Giovanni d’Aragona, cardinal 278 Hilarius of Poitiers, Saint 460, 461 Juan de Heredia 373n. Lvcurgus 77, 229n., 511, 572, 609
Giovanni da Gapestrano, San 98 Hippocrates 87, 128, 654, 807 Junius, Melchior, of Wittenburg 783 Lysias 69, 503, 788, 790, 792, 796
Giovanni da San Miniato 212n. Hippolvtus of Rome 13 Justin Martyr 12, 285n., 800n. Lysis the Pythagorean (pseudo-) 626
Giovanni di Cenni d ’Arezzo (Giovanni Hirschig, R. B. 795 Justinian, Roman Emperor 4
Aretino) 382, 394 Homer 9, 10, 29, 33, 39, 119, 120n., Juvenal 119, 212n., 270n., 518, 522 Machiavelli, Niccolo 230, 651-52
Giovanni Marco da Rimini 415, 416n., 315n., 415, 437, 450. 452, 456, 486n.. ‘‘Juvenal” , supposed disciple of Pletho 198 MacIntyre, Alasdair 180
417, 428 488, 552, 553, 555. 559, 562, 572, 573, Macrobius 131n., 214n., 270n., 279,
Gonzaga, Francesco, cardinal 211. 212 575, 595, 622. 623, 624, 625, 626, 635, Kettenheim, Johann Philip von 783 342, 345n., 358n., 525, 527, 533, 627,
Gorgias 56, 57, 116n., 170, 327, 340n. 647, 654, 701, 807 Klibanskv, Raymond 185 797
Grafton, Anthony XVIIn. Hopper, Marcus 480 Knauer, Georg Nicolaus 415 Malatesta, Carlo 69
Grassis. Achillc dc 641 Horace 25n., 41, 121n., 165, 270n., Kristeller, Paul Oskar 199, 276, 301. Malatesta, Cleope 213
Gratian 20, 38n. 486n., 618. 623, 626, 627 308, 310. 417, 418, 454, 483, 670 Malatesta, Sigismondo 213. 416n.
Gray, William 96n., 436n. Horelogio, Joannes de, of Padua 107n. Mancinelli. Antonio 745
Gregoras. Nicephoros 195 Huet, Daniel 311 n. Lactantius 12, 38n., 39, 51n.. 130, 133, Manetti, Gianozzo 94n., 164, 207, 276,
Gregory the Great, Saint 337, 586, 637 Hugo of St. Victor 641 134n., 145, 148-154, 157. 165, 234, 324n.
Gregory XII, antipope 52n., 53, 59 Hume, David 390 244n., 361, 462, 464n., 533. 561, 575, Manfred, abbot of Sant’Ambrogio.
Gregory of Nvssa 64, 251, 441 Humphrey of Gloucester, duke 96, 121, 593-94, 597-618, 631, 637, 641 Milan 110, 112
Grimani, Domenico 174 122, 124-126, 127n., 128, 129. 130. Ladislas, king of Naples 59 Manutius, Aldus 215n., 319, 349n., 449,
Grosseteste, Robert 123 133, 138n., 413, 533, 535, 577, 585, 586 Laemarius, Gulielmus, printer 654 480, 805
Grvnaeus, Simon 223n.. 31 In.. 3l2n., Hurtado de Mendoza. Diego 174 Landino, Cristoforo 24n., 270, 279. 298, Marc Antony 518
479-480, 481, 642-3, 645, 662, 753-54, Hvginus 416n. 303, 309, 311, 370n., 483 Marcel, Raymond 280, 454
800, 808 Landriani, Gerardo 124, 575, 576 Marcello, Jacopo Antonio 174, 416,
Guarini, Battista 106n. Iamblichus 2l9n., 256n., 283n., 284n., Lange, Reinhold: see Langius, Reinerus 427n., 428
Guarini, Girolamo 797n. 293n., 333n., 335, 346, 441, 461n., 663, Langius, Reinerus 805 Marcellus of Ancvra 13
Guarini, Guarino, da Verona lln .. 22. 742, 749 Langius, Rodolphus 732, 740, 756 Mare, Albinia de la 380
61, 98, 100, 106n., 119, 120, 131n., Iardis, Constantinus de 593 Lapo da Castiglionchio the Younger 438 Marescalchi, Francesco 454
140n., 166, 232, 233n., 324n., 325n., Innocent VII, Pope 49-50. 66, 367-369. Lasarius, Osualdus, of Zwickau 761 Marinus 346n.
402, 412, 437. 525 375, 377n., 378 Lascaris, Alexios 222 Marrasio Siculo 70, 7In., 72
Guise: see Charles of Lorraine Irenaeus of Sirmium, Saint 252 Latini, Brunetto 63n. Martin V, Pope 385n.
Gunthorpe, John 96n. Isidore of Kiev 203n., 221 Lefevre d’Etaples, Jacques 3, 743 Masai, Frangois 207, 437, 438
Guzman, Nunius de 591 Isocrates XVn., 10, 22, 100, 116, 41 In., Leo X, Pope 455, 458n.. 641 Massey, Edmund 789
Giustinian, Leonardo 59n., 60 486n., 488, 647 Leon the Academic 409 Mecenati, Francesco 129
Gyges 1 12 Leonardus de Utino, O.P. 376n. Medici. Clarice Orsini de’ 450
Gyarmathi, Miklos 777 Jacopo Angeli da Scarperia 119, 375 Leonico Tomeo, Niccolo 98n., 799 Medici, Cosimo de’ 58, 59, 66, 67, 74-
James VI, king of Scotland 778 Leto, Pomponio 199n., 211, 212, 213 78, 80-81, 207, 227, 267-268, 269n.,
Harmenopoulos, Constantine 170n. Jeremiah 50, 51n. Libanius 307 278, 291, 299, 300, 301, 304, 305, 308,
Harpocratius 358n. Jerome, Saint XVn., 12, 13, 42, 120, Lippi, Lorenzo, da Colle 5, 305, 475- 3 2 0 ,384,385 ,386n., 387, 404, 436, 483,
Hegius. Wolfgang 783 121n., 128n., 130, 133, 144, 145-148, 476, 486-488 487-488, 630, 670, 707
Held, Abraham 783 150n., 152, 157, 165, 189, 268, 297, Livy 45, 157, 373, 598 Medici, Giovanni di Cosimo 270n.
Henry VI, king oj England 124 315, 325, 337, 347, 361,421,500, ,603, Longolius 757 Medici, Giovanni di Lorenzo: see Leo X,
Henry of Ghent 6, 222, 225n. 745, 608, 614, 615, 617, 618, 627, 631, Lopez de Mendoza, Inigo 97n. Pope
Henry of Mecklenburg, prince 805 637 Lorenzi, Guido 348 Medici, Giuliano di Piero de’ 305
Heraclitus 93, 339, 460, 522, 565 Jerome of Prague, heretic 52n., 61n. Lorenzo Pisano 273n., 276, 278, 279, Medici, Lorenzo di Giovanni de’ 58, 67
Hercules 395 Jesus Christ 202, 203n., 241, 283, 299, 349, 355 Medici, Lorenzo di Piero de’ 91 n., 92,
Hermes Trismegistus 283n., 286n., 303, 285n., 482 Lorenzo Veneto 301 267, 268n., 290, 301,302,304,305,319,
366, 462-464, 638, 641 John the Evangelist, Saint 283n., 284, Loschi, Antonio 41, 48, 66, 68, 69, 81, 326n., 332n., 336, 348, 449-452, 484,
Hermeias. the Neoplatomsl 23, 315, 335, 519-20, 523, 640, 664 384n. 486, 623-26, 630, 659, 743
346, 358n. John II, King of Castile 415 Lucan 119 Medici, Lucrezia Tornabuoni de’ 451n.
Hermogenes 223ti.. 256, 479n. John XXIII, antipope 53, 56, 58, 59, Lucanus, Fr. Angelus 752 Medici, Nicola di Vieri de’ 62n.
Herodotus 575 60n.. 66, 382, 383n. Lucian of Samosata XVn., 321, 409n., Medici, Piero di Cosimo 293, 300n.,
Hcrpvllis 240 John ot Jandun 275n. 4 1 1 ,486n., 753, 756, 760. 763, 785,787, 305, 475, 484, 487-488, 622, 743
Hcreher. Rudolf 795 John of Salisbury 325n. 788, 806 Medulla. Franciscus 641, 752, 755
840 IN D EX O F N A M E S IN D EX O F NAMES 841

Mehmed II, Sultan 167, 210, 211 Nix, Richard 96n. Persius 638, 641 Polvbius 76. 38In.
Mehus, Lorenzo 384 North, John 788 Peter, Saint and Apostle 40, 54, 146. Polus 56. 340n.
Meinecke, Friedrich 364 Noscius, Joannes 648, 779 325n., 549, 640 Pompanazzi. Pietro 200n.
Melanchthon, Philip 3, 56n., 174, 255n., Numenius 238n., 283n., 284, 292, 358n. Peter Lombard 20. 128, 247 Puncher, Etienne 507
482, 804, 806, 807 Nuernberger, Karl 792 Petrarch. Francesco 4, 5. 7. 15. 31. 32, Popper, Karl 323, 356
Melchizedek 291 33, 34, 35, 36. 37. 41 n.. 43, 95. 100. Porcari, Stefano 174, 212, 227
Menander 121n. Obsopoeus, Vincentius 409n., 806 106, 120, 142, 145, 165, 194, 200. 217. Porphvrv 12, 92n., 203n.. 274, 31 7,
Mercati, Michele 302n.. 305 Occo, Adolphus II 800 226, 247, 357, 418 346, 441. 442, 479n.. 516. 663
Mercurio da Careggio 303 Occo, Sibrandus 756 Phaedrus 69 Portus, Franciscus 777
Miano, Pietro 374n. Oecolampadius. Johann 479 Phidias 518 Poseidon 200
Michael ol' Ephesus 63 Olvmpiodorus 346. 441, 641, 791 Philip of Opus 181n. Postel, Guillaume 307n.
Michael Monachus, scribe 8ln. Oporinus, Joannes 800, 805 Philo of Alexandria 23, 283n. Praxiteles 73. 518
Michelozzi, Niccolo 486n. Oppian ol' Cilicia 486, 487n. Philolaus 463. 464 Prenniger. Martin 273n., 293n.. 315n..
Micvllus. Jacobus 756, 760 Origen 12, 23, 37n., 38. 51n.. 64, 234n., Philoneicus. Joannes, abbot of Aldcrsbach 318. 319n.. 456
Migliorati, Cosimo de’: see Innocent VII 284, 287, 357, 441 766 Priscian 4n., 19
Miltiades 55, 168, 182 Orpheus 200, 283n., 286n., 315n., 452, Philoponus, John 1 Priscianus Lvdus 31 In.
Moerbeke. William 432-433, 476-478, 456, 460, 462, 46.8, 464, 574, 625 Phocvlides 555, 800n. Proclus 4. 37n., "Odn., 185, 186. 196n..
479, 732 Orsini, Fulvio 174 Piccinino. Niccolo 166 200, 207, 219, 223n., 228n.. 238n..
Mohammed 172. 173, 202n. Orsini, Giordano, cardinal 82, 509 Piccolommi. Enea Silvio 87n.. 437 240n.. 248, 254, 257n.. 258, 259, 26In..
Mohler, Ludwig 441 Orsini, Michele 427n. Piccolomini. Francesco 87n.. 484 283n., 284n., 307n., 309, 310. 515n..
Molnar, Georgius 777 Ortanus, Nicolaus: see Palmieri, Niccolo Pico della Mirandola. Gianfrancesco 409 317, 3l9n., 320n., 329n., 3.30n., 332n..
Mont'asani, John 167, 180, 182, 186, Ovid XVn., 119, 212n., 638. 641 Pico della Mirandola. Giovanni XV, 333n., 334, 335, 338, 340n.. 342. 545.
438. 439, 440 274, 287n., 298, 346. 439, 451, 485. 633 346, 358n., 406n., 433n., 441-444.
Montecatini, Antonio 255n., 784-85 Pachymeres, George 48In. Pilatus, Leontius 41 451n., 456. 4bln., 463. 464n.. 476n..
More, Thomas, Saint 199 Palamas, Gregorv 170, 171n., 194, 195, Pindar 56. 395, 556, 575, 773 480n., 485, 799. 804. 806
Morgenstein, Henry 100 197n., 198 Pirckheimer, Willibald 806 Procopius 121. 58In.
Mortensen. L. B. 371-372 Paleologus, John Vr 170, 196 Pisanello, Antonio Pisano, il 418n. Protagoras 340n.
Moses 13, 234, 238n.. 282, 283, 285n., Paleologus, John VIII 86, 88, 218, 220 Pisani, Ugolino 124, 128n.. 129. 143. Psellus 160, 762. 804
287, 292, 295, 357. 366, 445, 462, 464 Paleologus, Manuel 105, 201n. 144, 147, 152 Ptolemv 368, 374
Mueller, Markus Wilhelm 792 Palmieri, Niccolo 210, 211, 213, 620 Pius II, Pope 119. 173 Pulci, Luigi 271, 290, 349. 454
Mulingus or Malichius, Johannes Adel- Pannonius, Janus 286, 302, 464n., 484 Pizolpasso. Francesco 84n., 122n., 125- Pvthagoras 93, 116n.. 2 0 1 ,2 19n.. 283n.,
phus 631, 745, 746 Parleone, Giacomo 427-428 126, 128n., 129, 130, 133. 134n.. 144, 284n., 286n., 293, 303. 333, 339, 340.
Mussato, Albertino 3 In., 39n. Parleone, Pietro 415-417, 427-428 145-146, 251, 386-387, 404-406, 537. 348, 353, 354. 358, 410. 41 In., 452,
Nlusurus, Marcus 458n., 480 Parmenides 330, 339, 433, 435, 477 579 460, 462-463, 464, 516. 517. 521. 522,
Pastor, Ludwig von 49 Pizolpasso, Michele 128n.. 129, 147, 571, 573, 625, 656. 659, 748.800n., 807
Nabokov, Vladimir 192 Patrizi, Francesco, da Cherso 5 413, 580, 583
Naldi. Naldo 350n., 630, 742 Patrizi, Francesco, da Siena 408 Platina, Bartolomeo 211, 212, 213. 220 Quintilian 22, 26, 55. 169. 327n., 338n.,
Nansius, Franciscus 801 Patrophilus 519 Plautus 121n., 212n. 395, 575, 618, 635
Nazianzen, Gregory 251. 442 Paul, Saint and Apostle 12, 54, 84n., 92, Pletho: see Gemistus. Georgius Quirini, Lauro 62, 237n.
Neander, Michael 800 136, 146, 278, 281, 283n.. 284, 285, Pliny the Elder 464n., 627, 647, 654
Nemesius 358 349n., 499, 521, 636 Plinv the Younger 575, 635 Raianus Welsdalius, Hermannus 306
Newton-Smith, W. H. 17 Paul II, Pope 210-216, 232, 347, 620 Plotinus 207, 249, 254. 258. 259. 274, Ramus. Peter 166. 223n., 806
Niavis, Paulus 631, 741 Paul ot' Middleburg 303 283n., 284, 286. 301, 304n., 309, 31 In., Ransano. Pietro 155n.
Niccoli, Niccolo 30. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35n., Paul of Venice 90, 166, 245-246nn., 312, 315, 317, 320, 340, 341, 345, 346, Raphael Comensis 90n.
38, 40n., 41, 42, 48, 49, 53, 56-57, 58- 271n ., 275n. 348, 358, 441, 443n., 447, 464n., 485 Regius Cornarius, Lodovicus 303. 304n.
61, 62n., 64, 65, 66, 67, 73, 81n., 368, Pazzi, Piero de’ 278 Plutarch 41n., 51, b6n., 94n., 119, 145, Resta, Gianvito 159
369, 371n., 372, 374, 375n., 378n., 379, Perenotus, Antonius, bishop of Arras 768 155, 158, 219, 229n., 243n., 307n., Rihelius, Josias 783
382, 383, 405 Perez, Gonzales, secretary to Philip II oj 324n., 346, 368. 372-378. 380, 381. Rincus, Joannes, of Cologne 742
Niccolini, Ottone 305 Spain 767 406n., 497, 517, 522, 523, 575, 582, Rinuccini, Alamanno 288
Nicolas V, Pope 86, 87, 88, 118, 129. Pericles 55, 168 618, 641, 774, 800n., 807 Rinuccini, Cino 33. 34
167, 174, 181, 182. 191, 227, 589, 620 Perion, Joachim 481n., 799, 806 Plutarch (pseudo-): see Aetius Rinuccio Aretino (or da Castiglionfiorcn-
Nicholas of Cusa XV, 5n., 6, 7, 95, 97, Perleone: see Parleone Poliziano, Angelo Ambrogini. called 5, tino) 5. 82. 85-89, 91, 95, 166, 307.
184-186, 191, 196, 214, 26ln., 279n., Perna, Petrus 438n. 25, 216, 233, 270, 298, 311, 346. 348. 308n., 379, 401-403
281, 361, 405, 413n., 432, 438, 439, Perotti, Niccolo 173, 184n., 210, 213, 35 In., 364, 365, 449-453, 48bn., Robinson, Ralph 323
442, 444n. 215, 2 18n., 229n., 231n., 233n., 310. 623-629 Robortello, Francesco 90n.
Nietzsche, Friedrich 1, 56, 101. 395 473 Pollio, Asinius 143 Rodingus, Joannes 781
842 IN D E X O F N A M E S IN D E X O F NAME S 843

Rondonus. Jacobus 464n. Sixtus IV, Pope 216 Themistocles 40n., 55, 168, 182, 549 Valla, Lorenzo 129, 145, 146, 148, 164,
Rortv, Richard 2 In. Sleidanus, Joannes 255n. Theocritus 800n. 166, 167, 169n., 173, 213n., 224n.,
Rosalechius, Joachim 780 Socrates 11, 13, 35-36, 38, 40, 47, 51-52, Theodore, despot of the Peloponnesus 20In. 238n., 364, 365, 627, 797n.
Roscius, Bernardus 640 54-57, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 72. 73, 74. Theodoret of Cvr 13, 349n., 454, 458n. Valori, Filippo 301, 305-306, 485
Rossi, Roberto .40, 404 82. 83. 84, 88, 89. 93, 99, 100, 111, Theodorus of Asine 346 Varro 143, 638
Rudiger, Esrom 806 1 I6n., 131, 135, 137, 142. 144, 150, Theognis 800n. “ Velleius” 82, 508
Rucellai, Bernardo 406 178, 194n., 2 14n., 236n., 256, 285, 293, Theon of Smyrna 804 Vergerio, Pier Paolo 30, 48, 81
Rustichellus, Gulielmus .480 294, 297, 307, 309, 312, 313, 321-324, Theophrastus ll6n ., 274, 804 Vespasiano da Bisticci 60n., 66n., 96
Rustici, Cencio de' 5, 45n., 81-85, 89n., 325. 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 339, Theophylactus Simocatta 670 Vespucci, Giorgio Antonio 311, 384n.,
95, 96. 407, 310, 421, 473-474 340, 341, 344, 347, 348, 350, 353, 354, Thilo, Valentin 800 385n.
Rusticucci, Girolamo, cardinal 784 355n., 390, 391, 394, 395, 396. 398, Thomas Cantimpratensis 417 Vettori, Pier 700, 807
399-400, 401, 402, 409-410, 419. 421n.. Thompson, Johann Wilhelm 789 Vicomercato, Ottaviano 418n., 593
Sacco. Catone 129, 148 452. 457n., 466, 497, 498, 499, 501, Thrasvllus 5, 306, 308, 427, 670 Victorinus, Marius 4n.
Saffrev, H.-D. 441 504, 505, 511, 518, 522, 529-30. 532, Thrasvmachus 138n., 307, 340n., 538, Victorius, Petrus: see Vettori, Pier
Sallust 45. 373n., 571, 575 533. 538-547, 549-74, 600-608, 610- 549-50, 572. 586-87 Vietor, Theodorus 807
Salutad, Coiuccio 22n., 24. 30, 31, 32, 614, 628, 632, 643, 656, 748, 799 Thucydides 796 Villani, Filippo 38n.
33, 34, 35-38, 39. 40. 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, Solon 511, 572 Thylesius, Anthonius 757 Vincent of Beauvais 497
51. 62. 105, 106, 156, 165, 223n., 358, Souda. Bv~antine compilation 522 Tiara, Petreius 807 Vincent of Lerins, Saint 252
368. 370-376, 377n., 456 Sophianos, Joannes 439 Tifernate, Gregorio 436, 438 Vincente, Antoine 42In., 453, 479, 480-
Saiviati. Roberto 288 Sophocles 549 Tignosi, Niccolo, da Foligno 164, 271, 481, 644
Sambucus, Joannes 806 Sozomenus. Joannes 255n. 275 Virgil XVn., 22n., 33, 39n., 119, 128,
Sansovino. Jacopo 232 Spenser, Edmund 806 Timaeus of Locri 307n., 339, 406n., 165, 270n., 290, 367, 419, 437, 536,
Saracenus. Janus 777 Speusippus 307, 742, 748 436, 516-17, 518, 522, 670 574, 595, 607, 618, 649, 654, 805
Sarti. Alessandro 449. 451 Stanford, Charles Stuart 795 Tolkien, J. R. R. 66 Virunius, Ponticus 416n.
Sassetti. Filippo 801 Stasinus 402 Tortelli, Giovanni 22n., 155n., 233n., Visconti, Filippo Maria 79, 108n., 118,
Savonarola. Girolamo 13, 32, 173, 174, Statius 119 438 119, 129, 130, 140n., 149n.
243n., 290, 348, 349n.. 358, 361 Stephanus Aretinus 48 Toscanelli, Paolo 437 Visconti, Francesco 150n., 417
Scala, Bartolomeo 298, 311, 348n., 408, Stobaeus, Johannes 307n., 461n., 758, Trapezuntius, Andreas 211, 215 Visconti, Giangaleazzo 105, 106, 108n.,
456, 458 760, 762, 764, 765, 767, 770, 787, 796, Trapezuntius, George, of Crete 3, 5, 13, 109, 140, 370, 526
Schaak, Peter 692 805 58, 160, 164, 165-92, 193, 194n., 196, Visconti, Giovanni Maria 107, 108n.
Schedel. Hartmann 97 Stotrogius, Nicolaus 747 197n., 198, 202, 203, 209-211, 213, Vitali, Bernardino 799
Schleiermacher, Friedrich D. F. 358 Strabo 243n. 214n., 215-216, 217, 220, 222, 223n., Vitali, Pietro 437
Schneider, C. E. Chr. 795 Streit, Wolfgang 649 227, 229, 230, 233, 234, 235, 236-255, Vittorino da Feltre 22, 166, 168, 232,
Scholarius, George 13, 9 In., 92n., 197, Strozzi, Palla 30, 58, 105, 404n. 285, 308n., 310, 312, 314, 316n., 317, 406n.
198, 199, 203, 204, 208, 216, 221, 274, Strozzi, Piero, scribe 394n. 324n., 347, 348, 356n., 357, 361, 365,
436-437, 440 Strozzi, Tito 120n. 366, 429-435, 439, 440, 441, 443, 445- Walker, D. P., 463
Scotus, John Duns 6 Sturm, Johann 806 448, 461n., 470-471, 473, 476-478, 620- Wechel, Johann 806
Scribonius. Guilelmus Adolphus 779, Stutzmann, Johann Josef 793 21, 798 Westerink, L. G. 441
780, 781. 784, 786 Suetonius 373n., 581 Traversari, Ambrogio 59-61, 62n., 64, Wilhelmus de Egra 741
Scutellius, Nicolaus, ot Trent 438n., 807 Sylvester Maurocenus 758 67, 68, 69, 73-74, 81, 86, 130, 306, William of Moerbeke 4, 185, 261n.,
Sebastiano da Pisa, miniaturist 368-369 Svmonds, John Addington 107 380n., 383, 399, 406n., 438, 458, 460n., 279n., 310
Secundinus, Nicolaus 220, 439, 523, 798 Synesius 806 461 Wimpfeling, Jakob, of Strasbourg 631,
Seneca 94n., 113, 141, 519, 524. 533, Svrianus 333n., 346, 358n. Tremblay, Etienne 479, 481-482, 657, 745
535, 549, 564, 569, 575 Svropoulos, Sylvester 222 808 Winkler, Johann Heinrich 790
Seraiico, Antonio 270n., 279n. Trinkaus, Charles 37 Wind, Edgar 198, 199n.
Serres, Jean de 481-482, 807 Tacitus, Cornelius XVn., 105, 518, 522 Tulichius, Hermannus 747 Wolfius, Hieronymus 801, 804, 807
Servius 18, 524 Taegius, Franciscus 632, 748 Turnebe, Adrien 806 Woodforde, Thomas 96n.
Sforza, Francesco 118, 119 Talenti, Rolando 125-126, 576 Tydeman, H. W. 692 Wyttenbach, Daniel 795
Sf’orza. Galeazzo Maria 214n. Tapia Aldana, Jacobus 775
Skaranos, Demetrius 60. 70n., 171, 196 Taylor, Charles XVn. Ubaldini, Ottaviano degli 418, 595 Xenocrates 92n., 267, 300n., 307,
Siger of' Brabant 273 Tempier, Etienne 248n. Uranius, Martinus: see Martin Prenniger 325n., 516, 631-32, 648, 805
Simeonachis, John 86, 166 Tenantius, Janus 778 Xenophon 51, 52n., 76, 121, 373, 376-
Simon, count oj Lippe 779 Terence 33, 121 n., 573, 575, 618 Valerianus, Julius 634-35, 751 378, 380, 381, 387n., 406n.. 571, 628,
Simonides 549 Tertullian 13, 252 Valerius Maximus 373n., 574, 634, 805 761, 800n.
Simplicius 92n.. 274. 441, 516 Thales 511, 573, 639 Valgulius, Carolus 302n.
Sinner, F. tie 795 Themistius 274 Valla, Giorgio 4n., 92n.
844 IN D E X O F N A M E S

Zalmoxes 461n. Zoroaster 93, 201. 283n., 286n., 303

Zampinus, Franciscus 641, 752, 755 460, 461-464, 516, 521-22
Zeno of Elea 330, 339, 340, 433,477,518 Zsambokv, Jan: see Sambucus, Joannes
Zeus 200 Zuichemus, Viglius, imperial counselor ADDENDA
Ziegler, Joannes 747 765, 796

Addendum to vol. 1, p. 148n.: see now the valuable dissertation of David E.

Rutherford, "‘Antonio da Rho and his Dialogi tres in Lactantium: A Study in Re­
naissance Patristics’’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1988).

Addendum to vol. 2, p. 596 f.. Text 54: Rutherford identifies BAY Ottob. lat.
1903 as Antonio da Rho’s autograph, and BAV Vat. lat. 227 as the dedication
copy (with authorial corrections), of the Dialogi in Lactantium.

Since these volumes went to press the following additions to Cat. A have sur­
faced in the course of my current research on the textual tradition of the works
of Leonardo Bruni, or have been kindly brought to my attention by other
scholars.

39bisj CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, Ktng’s College Library X V .3.4. Printed

edition of Pomponius Mela (Venice 1477 = BM XV, p. 261) bound together
with 46 manuscript leaves. MS portion is cart., s. XV 3/4. Humanistic cursive.
ff. lr-46v: Ep. I-VIII, tr. Bruni, with preface and argument: preface and Ep.
VIII are fragmentary.
Communication of M. C. Davies.

*91 bis] FLORENCE, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Naz. II VIII 129. Cart.,
misc., s. XV (1420s), 201 leaves. Hand of Rinuccio Aretino.
ff. 16r-17v: Phd., tr. Bruni, preface only.
Mazzatinti 11: 248.

119] Provenance: Raphael de Marcatellis; bought by Hunter at the David

Mallet sale (1766). To the bibliography add: Nigel Thorp, The Glory of the Page:
Medieval and Renaissance Illuminated Manuscripts from Glasgow University Library
(Glasgow, 1987), p. 187 with plate; A. Derolez, “ Un nouveau manuscrit de la
bibliotheque de Raphael de Marcatel,” in Litterae Medii Aevi: Festschrift fuer
Johanne Autenreith, ed. M. Borgolte and H. Spilling (Sigmaringen, 1988),
301-308. (Information supplied by Virginia Brown.)

*17Obis] MILAN, Biblioteca Ambrosiana Y 97 sup. Cart., misc., s. XV, 69

leaves.
f. 24r-v. Ap., tr. Bruni, argument only.
Iter 1: 345D.

+ 214bis] OXFORD, Private collection of A. C. de la Mare, s.n. Cart. s. XV

(ca. 1425-35), 2 leaves. Round humanistic script, written in Venice. Acquired
from a German dealer in 1989.
Ep., tr. Bruni, preface and argument only.
Communication of A. C. de la Mare.
 846 ADDENDA A D D EN D A 847

*250bis] ROME, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Gesuitico 973 (3102). Cart., ca. 1551
misc., s. XV, 169 leaves.
+ 80bis] Hi. ma., tr. Ficino, revised by Grynaeus. [Paris: Prigent Calvarin].
ff. 25r-26v: Ep., tr. Bruni, preface only.
No TP or COL. SIGN: A-D4 = (16) leaves. 4to.
Iter 2: 124D.
K[rvstian] J[ensen], ‘‘Notable Accessions , Bodleian Library Record 13.3 (Oc­
*304bis] VATICAN CITY, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. lat. 3021. tober, 1989): 250-51.
Cart., misc., s. XV, 57 leaves. Written by Wenceslaus de Alamania in 1435. Bodleian Vet. El d.53(2), with MS notes from a lecture.
ff. 30r-31r: Phd., tr. Bruni, preface only.
+ 80ter] Meno, tr. Ficino, revised by Grynaeus. [Paris: Prigent Calvarin].
Iter 2: 438D.
No TP or COL. SIGN: A-E4F2 = (22) leaves. 4to.
*365bis] VENICE, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XI 100 (3938). K[rvstian] J[ensen], “ Notable Accessions” , Bodleian Library Record 13.3 (Oc­
Cart., misc., s. XV, 270 leaves. Owned in 1454 by Benedictus de Ovetariis civis tober, 1989): 250-51.
Vincencie, secretarius regis Cipri. From Apostolo Zeno.
Bodleian Vet. El d53(4), with MS notes from a lecture.
ff. 179r-180r: Phd., tr. Bruni, preface onlv.
Iter 2: 255D; Zorzanello 1: 563. 1551

+ 82bis] Hi. ma., tr. Ficino, revised by Grynaeus. Paris: Prigent Calvarin.
*J65terj----- , Marc. lat. XI 102 (3940). Cart., misc., s. XV, 95 leaves. From
Apostolo Zeno. TP: PLATONIS/Hippias minor, vel,/de mendacio./Marsilio Ficino/interprete.
PARISIIS,/Ex officina Prigentii Caluarim ad geminas/Cyppas, in clauso Bru-
1. 43r-v: Phd., tr. Bruni, preface only.
nello./1551. No COL.
Iter 2: 256D; Zorzanello 2: 7.
SIGN: A-B+C2 = (10) leaves. 4to.
*365quater]----- , Marc. lat. XIV 7 (4319). Misc., s. XV. Kfrystian] J[ensen], “ Notable Accessions” , Bodleian Library Record 13.3 (Oc­
tober, 1989): 250-51.
Phd., tr. Bruni, preface only.
Bodleian Vet. El d.53(3), with MS notes from a lecture.
Iter 2: 246E; Zorzanello 3: 13.
+ 82ter] Thg., tr. Ficino, revised by Grynaeus. Paris: Jean Guellaert.
*366bis]----- , Marc. lat. XIV 31 (4701). Cart., misc., s. XV-XVI, 136 leaves.
From Farsetti. TP: THEAGES VEL/de Sapientia Dialogus/PLArcw/s/PARISIIS./£ Typogra-
phia Ioannis Gueullartii ad Phoenicem/e regione collegu Remensis. /1551. No COL.
ff. 22v-23v (a. 1449): Phd., tr. Bruni, preface only.
SIGN: A-B4 = (8) leaves. 4to.
J. Morelli, Farsetti 1: 45; Iter 2: 263D; Zorzanello 3: 51.
K[rystian] J[ensen], “ Notable Accessions” , Bodleian Library Record 13.3 (Oc­
*368bis]----- , Marc. lat. XIV 221 (4632). Cart., misc., s. XVIII, 212 leaves. tober, 1989): 250-51.
Written by Giacomo Morelli. Bodleian Vet. El d.53(l), with MS notes from a lecture.
ff. 164v-166r: Phdr., tr. Bruni, preface only.
Iter 2: 267D; Zorzanello 3: 319.

Virginia Brown brought to my attention the following additions to Cat. B, all

ol them contained in a tract volume acquired bv the Bodleian Librarv, Oxford,
in 1989; they are not described in any printed catalog. A. C. de la Mare kindly
obtained a microfilm for me.
 C o lu m b ia S tu d ie s in the C la ssica l T ra d itio n publishes monographs by members of the
Columbia University faculty and by former Columbia students. Its subjects are the
following: Greek and Latin literature, ancient philosophy, Greek and Roman history,
classical archaeology, and the classical tradition in its medieval, Renaissance and modern
manifestations.
T h e jo llo w in g books have been p u b lis h e d in the series:
I. Monfasani, John: George o j T re b iz o n d : a B io g ra p h y a n d a S tu d y o f h is R h eto ric a n d L o g ic
(1976)
II. Coulter. James A.: T h e L ite ra r y M ic ro c o sm : Theories o f In terp reta tio n o j the L a ter
S 'eo p la to n ists (1976)
III. Riginos, Alice Swift: P latonica. T h e Anecdotes concerning the L ife a n d W r itin g s o f Plato
(1976)
IV. Bagnall, Roger S . : T h e A d m in is tr a tio n oj the P tolem aic P ossessions o u tsid e E g y p t (1976)
V. Keuls, Eva C.: P lato a n d G reek P a in tin g (1978)
VI. Schein, Seth L.: T h e Ia m b ic T rim e te r in A e sc h ylu s a n d Sophocles: .1 S tu d y in M e tric a l
Form ( 1980)
VII. O ’Sullivan, Thomas D.: T h e D e E x c id w o j G ild a s: Its A u th e n tic ity a n d D a te (1978)
VIII. Cohen, Shave J. D.: J o s e p h u s in G alilee a n d R o m e: H is Vita a n d D evelo p m en t as a
H is to r ia n (1979)
IX. Taran, Sonya Lida: T h e A r t o f V ariation in the H e lle n istic E p ig ra m (1979)
X. Cameron, Averil & Herrin, Judith (Eds.): C o n sta n tin o p le in the E a r ly E ig h th C entury:
the P a rastaseis S y n to m o i C h r o m k a i. In tr o d u c tio n , T ra n sla tio n a n d C o m m e n ta ry (1984)
XI. Bruno, Vincent J.: H e lle n is tic P a in tin g T ech n iq u es: the E vid en ce o f the D elos F ra g m en ts
(1985)
XII. Wood, Susan: R o m a n P ortrait S cu lp tu re, 2 1 7 - 2 6 0 A .D . T h e T ra n sfo rm a tio n o f an A r ­
tistic T r a d itio n (1986)
XIII. Bagnall, Roger S. & Harris, William V. (Eds.): S tu d ies in R o m a n L a w in M em o ry
o f A . A r th u r S ch iller (1986)
XIV. Sacks. Richard: T h e T r a d itio n a l P hrase in H o m e r. T w o S tu d ie s in F orm , .M ea n in g a n d
Interp reta tio n (1987)
XV. Brown, Robert D.: L u c r e tiu s on L o v e a n d Sex. A C o m m e n ta ry on D e R e ru m N a tu r a I V ,
1 0 3 0 - 1 2 8 7 w ith Prolegom ena, T e x t a n d T ra n s la tio n (1987)
XVI. Knox, Dilwvn: Iro n ia . M e d ie v a l a n d R e n a issa n c e Idea s on Iro n y (1989)